Hansard, 1984-07-03

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Amendment [29th June, 1984] to Question [29th June, 1984], "That this House, having noted the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged - A Blue Paper by the Ministry of Health, February 1984, as contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 1984, approves the recommendations of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged." - [Minister for Health]. Which Amendment was, To leave out "approves the recommendations of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged" appearing in lines 3 and 4 and insert - "recommends to the Government to adopt the Report, after making appropriate amendments to the recommendations taking into consideration the views expressed by this House". - [Mr Lim Boon Heng].

Notice of an amendment* to the amendment from the Member for Anson is set out in the Order Paper. This proposed amendment to the amendment is similar in effect to, and supersedes, the amendment to the Original Question of which the Member for Anson had previously given notice. *The amendment, standing in the name of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, reads as follows: 'As an amendment to the amendment, "To leave out the words 'recommends to the Government to adopt the Report, after making appropriate amendments to the recommendations taking into consideration the views expressed by this House' proposed to be inserted, and there to insert- 'calls upon the government to reject the proposal of the Committee that the government should consider raising the age for withdrawal of CPF savings at first to 60 and later to 65'.". I shall propose again the question on the amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Following the agreement of the House, debate will range over the Original Question, the amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of the Member for Anson. 2.33 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard many comments by hon. Members on the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged. There have been more brickbats than bouquets, I am afraid. Speeches ranged over the sociological, economic, as well as the cultural aspects. Unfortunately, only a few Members here managed to touch on the political aspect of the Report. I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Report as a whole is praiseworthy. This is the first time Singaporeans have spent time to look into the problems of the elder citizens. In going through the Report, Sir, I also looked at the bibliography of references. I was impressed by the literature taken from the various countries which included - of course, 11 of them were from Singapore-Australia, Britain, United States, France, Japan and even Korea, what the United Nations has termed as a NIC - newly industrialized countries. We have done well, Sir, for the last 25 years. The PAP has succeeded on two basic beliefs. One is that we have not created a special class citizen. There were good things to be given out - housing, social welfare aid, licences. We have not given out all these goodies by virtue of the fact that so-and-so is a member of the Party - the PAP. We have not done that and yet we have succeeded. We have ruled with firmness and fairness. We have not created a special class citizen. The second, Mr Speaker, Sir, is our ability to anticipate problems, not problems of the day but problems of the future. This is a plus - point for the PAP. But, unfortunately, we may be guilty of carrying out what we call "the anticipation of the problems" far too long and far too much weight has been given to this. Of course, it is easy for us not to do anything now and leave it to, what the Second Minister for Health would call, the third generation leadership. That is the easiest way out. But that will be an irresponsible act. Looking through the Report, I was impressed because one of these days inevitably, that is, if we live that long, we will find ourselves as members of that community. The difference is that we would then be on the receiving end. That is the difference. I must commend the Minister for a job well done, all except one, that is. Popularly dubbed as the Howe Report, if I may also imitate the Minister's style of holding the Report in one hand, with one finger of the other pointing to Providence - I am afraid, Sir, the Report part of it is as controversial as Howe was a highly misunderstood man. I know the Minister, Sir. In fact, I enjoy sparring with him, a gentleman true to heart, a very sincere, tough-speaking but soft-hearted man. In fact, Sir, I did send to the Minister a couple of literature on the subject when the Committee was meeting. For the first one, I earned high praise from him for my concern. But I dared not accept those kind words because that would put me in high danger, because he compared me with somebody who is real high. The second one, Sir, I sent him an article on the demographical influence on the economy - an article on the US situation, that the economy is now feeling the effects of the baby boom years. Throw us back 25 years in 1959, the 5Os and early 60s, there were really baby booms and they all now have come of age. The result is that many new industries emerged. So we have got the T-shirt generation, and the hamburger generation. But many industries which depended on producing consumer goods for the elder generation declined. Some even folded up. What will happen when the present T-shirt generation and the hamburger generation reach their middle age and the old age? The economy and the industry will have to be revamped to cater for them. In fact, the demographic changes in the population are a very serious matter. Unfortunately, people can hardly appreciate the significance. When the PAP came to power in 1959, faced with a nearly empty coffer (I remember it was $10 million in the red after selling Christmas Island) we were then concerned with the most grievous problem of finding jobs for the younger people. At that time, more than 50% of our population were below the age of 21. Our Cabinet then was the youngest in the world. We had no time for problems of the elders then. We were looking for jobs. We were trying to provide housing, a shelter for the people. And now we can afford to spend time on the elders. We have come a long way, a good way, although a hard way. We are now more secure, with full employment, better standard of living, better homes, better in everything. Of course, if the Member for Anson asks what have we got in the last 25 years, I invite him to look at himself. He is the proof. So in that situation, it is only right that we should look into problems that will affect the country some time later. But let us not carry this too far. I am afraid to say, Sir, that the Government has a habit of trying to find immediate solutions to problems that will come 20, 30, 40 years from now. Far-sightedness is a good thing, Sir, but short-sightedness in politics is going to be disastrous, as the Member for Serangoon Gardens warned yesterday. I commend the Minister for his far-sightedness but I do question his short-sightedness in his political approach. I remember something very similar to an article I sent to the Minister about the projection of the population in the years 2010, 2020 and 2030 by an American writer. The Report also reflected that - the years 2010, 2020 and 2030. So it is not our problem alone. It is an American problem given a Singapore dressing. Fair enough, insofar as those portions which are relevant to us. Perhaps if I may put in a language that the Minister would understand. It is a case of a correct diagnosis but with the wrong prognosis, resulting in the wrong prescription of medicine. The Second Minister for Health, his colleague, once told the Member for Rochore who criticized certain aspects of the work of the Ministry (that the Member for Rochore was the former Minister for Health) that when he left the Ministry, he left his glasses behind. I think the Minister for Health and the Second Minister for Health are looking at the problem with two pairs of tinted glasses. They do not need glasses. They need a political periscope. At the rate we go and if the Report were to be accepted in toto, at best, Mr Speaker, Sir, it will give out the wrong signal that the Government is being over-protective. There is nothing wrong in being over-protective. But let us work within the confines of reason. At worst, Mr Speaker, Sir, it may create a wrong reading by the people that the Government's management philosophy is based on complete distrust of the people. When I stand on a stage to deliver political speeches, I was governed by one basic objective. In my mind, in my heart, I thought to myself, "Look, fellows, please listen to me, because if you do not, I am in trouble. "The new philosophy, Sir, is this: "Look, you fellows, you bloody hell listen to me, because if you do not, you are in trouble." That is the new philosophy. We have to rally people to our side and to harness their energy and their views towards a common objective. The Howe report is a good report, only to be washed out by one single proposal, that of withholding the CPF money at the age of 55. Mr Speaker, Sir, someone has said that our success is a miracle. We do have miracle solutions, miracle cures, Sir. The CPF happens to be a miracle cure for many social ills. Every time we get into trouble, look at the CPF. The Minister argued passionately in this House that the CPF is for pension, for old age security. Indeed, he argued with equal passion, more vigorous, of course, without the benefit of your Chairmanship, Sir - the discussion the Minister had with us was really more vigorous and certainly less decorous. Our views were not convincing, neither were his. He argued passionately that the CPF is for old age pension. I only hope the Minister can get his Cabinet colleagues to agree with him because I think his Cabinet colleagues think otherwise. The CPF is for everything. If you want to salvage the SBS, you think of the CPF and allow them to buy shares. Is that for old age pension? Is the Minister brave enough today to revoke those monies spent to buy SBS shares? One cannot have it both ways. When you want to do something, the CPF can be used to buy shares. Now, for old age security, "We hold it back for you." I only support two schemes for using the CPF. From my stint in the Ministry of Labour, my own belief and my understanding of the CPF, I only support two schemes. One is the housing scheme, the other is Medisave. Yet, even in the implementation of Medisave, a great misunderstanding was created. There needed to be an explanation. What is lacking, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this whole exercise is the lack of political skill in communication - how to sell a product. The Member for Toa Payoh is overseas. He should be able to advise the Minister on how to sell even an unacceptable product. My advice to the Minister is: don't tinker with people's money. They have planned their lives. They have earned their keeps. What is there for the Government to beg-rudge them using their money for a trip overseas? For all the years of sweat and toil, what is so grievously wrong for a person who wants to visit his kinsfolk in China, or in India? What is there for us to begrudge them? What is so wrong with his going back to India to look at his 'thambis' and 'thangachis'? What is so wrong for him to go to China to look at his 'achek' and his 'apek'? What is wrong for a Muslim to take out the money at the age of 55 to go to the Tanah Suchi, the Holy Land, to fulfil one of the five pillars of Islam? We have just finished 'Puasa Bulan Ramadan', one of the pillars of Islam. The fifth is, if the Minister does not understand, it is: 'Menunaikan Fardhu haji ke Mekah'. That is the last one, the pledge to visit the Holy Land. I speak for a good number of Malay voters in my constituency. I throw a party for them every year, the seventh year now, for the bakal bakal haji, to visit the Holy Land. Do you expect a person at the age of 60 to walk around the Kaabah seven times, being pushed along by the bigger pilgrims - and what if he happens to be at the outside fringe of the Kaabah? Mr Speaker, Sir, when a person has lived up to that age, having worked, toiled and sweated for so many years, I say that he is entitled to spend his savings in the way that is best to satisfy his own pledge to his religion, to his kinfolk and to his conscience. Why should we begrudge these people? Of course, holding back the CPF has its advantage, but is there a need for us now to provide an immediate solution to a problem that will come in the year 2030? Those who voted for the PAP at the age of 22 in 1959, add 25 years, they are now 47, 50 perhaps. Who are these people? They are now heads of households. They influence the thinking in the family. They have their own peer group. They speak with experience, bitter, sweet experience with their working colleagues. They know what to do. Are we here to beg-rudge them, to question them? In a few years, all of us will be elders. I do speak, Mr Speaker, Sir, as the older generation politically, although age-wise I am not. Perhaps the Minister might want to listen to a person who comes from the ground, a person who belongs to the political elders, if I may "pu shi i lau mai lau". But I claim to speak with authority on that, and I do not apologize for this boast. When we rally the people behind us, we give them hope. We do not give them despair. Old people need more than old age homes, more than homes for the aged sick. The Member for Anson thought that by providing more homes for the aged and more homes for the aged sick, we would have solved the problem. Of course, they deserve our attention - every bit of our attention. We do not need the Member for Anson to tell us that. We started activities for the elders long before his emergence in this House. Old people need more than homes for the aged, more than homes for the aged sick. They are the minority, Mr Speaker, Sir. Fortunately, they are the minority and, of course, we will look after them. The majority of the elders need company. Loneliness can even be worse than terminal illness because it attacks his mind. We have got to provide opportunities for these old people not only to feel that they are part of the community but also to feel that they are wanted and that they can still be productive in different ways to contribute towards society. They need company. They want to see the world a little bit more. They want to eat a little bit more, maybe better food. What we say in Chinese is, "Duo chi yi dian, duo kan yi dian shi jie". And here we say, "Look, don't look at the world. You don't deserve to look at the world. We are going to keep your savings." They need that money. By and large, as many Members have pointed out, CPF members do not squander away their savings easily. There have been cases, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am aware of that, from my experience in the Ministry of Labour. But these cases are few and far between. We cannot just take a few cases of people squandering their money and say that the majority will have to suffer for the folly of the minority, if we believe in majority rule. There have been cases, but I do not believe people will squander their money that way. One of the similarly commendable recommendations is the increase in tax relief from $1,000 to $2,000. It is a very attractive recommendation. But looking hard at it, I say, here is another case for a give-and-take policy. We give you the tax rebate and then we slam a tax. When the Member for Punggol raised the question of relief for parental support in the House many years ago, the then Minister for Finance (to identify him, Sir, may I mention that Dr Goh Keng Swee was then the Minister for Finance) promptly and roundly gave the Member for Punggol a lecture on filial piety and why he should not be mercenary. The Member for Punggol, of course, was caught for words. But persistent as he was - he still is - and with the support of many other Members, the question was brought up again and again. Then the late Minister for Finance, Mr Hon Sui Sen, thought otherwise. No longer was asking for relief for supporting the parents considered mercenary. He agreed to give tax relief to those who support their parents. Here, we have two views now. At one stage when you asked for relief you were being mercenary. At another stage, you were being filial, so they agreed to both! The Minister for Health is trying to do even better: better claims for tax relief and also the income ceiling for the elder person himself should be removed. But at what cost? At the cost of withholding the CPF at the age of 55, which means that anyone on reaching the age of 55 will pay 3 1/2% tax to the Government. This is because if I can get the money out, I'd put it in the bank, and I get more interest. So you deny him a higher interest on that money. You give him tax relief, so by the time he reaches the age of 55, he starts paying tax in the form of a sum of money being held back and earning a lower interest than it should have if it is given to him. It is a kind of an indirect tax. So, let us not be too happy about this tax relief. Read the whole recommendation, in toto, and you will find that the old people are being taxed, deliberately so. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is my way of looking at it. I might be pungent in my remarks, but the fact remains that if you do not take out the money at the age of 55, you will earn 6 1/2% of "tax". And even the proposition that you can take part of the money at 55 and thereafter at 60, is totally unacceptable. At the age of 40 or even 45, a man would have contributed to CPF since the age of 21. For example, he may have started work at 18, so at the age of 40, after 22 years of work, what would be his savings in the CPF? On lower pay, lower rate of CPF and low interest, compounded interest notwithstanding, he would have less in the CPF than he would have from the age of 41 to the age of 55, where you have a higher pay and higher CPF, and therefore a higher rate of compound interest. So you take out less, with your savings in the CPF from the age of 20 to 40, but you lock up more from the age of 41 to 55. 20 years of saving would not be more than 15 years of saving. This proposition, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think, is unacceptable. The Member for Chong Boon has proposed that new entrants be placed under the new scheme. I am in favour of that, but with reservation. Firstly, when a young person joins the job market, or rather a new entrant to the job market, he will take on the job with an open mind. "Yes, I take on this job. I am going to get my CPF at the age of 60 or 65. Fair enough. But you guarantee my retirement. I am not going to find myself in a quandary, that at the age of 65, I lose my job and I have no money to live; at least for the next six months when I am looking for another job." But there is a danger in this proposal. If applied universally and blindly, we might deter some women who might want to join the labour market in later years when their children have grown up to an age to be able to at least look after themselves for half a day. We should not deter these women from joining the job market. If applied without any proviso, this will work against our interests. The principle is acceptable, The new entrants to the job market will come under the new scheme but the proviso must be there to make it attractive and possible for women workers to join our production brigade. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed the audacity to offer a word of advice to the Minister? This is what politics is all about, When gut feelings are impinged, objectivity is expunged. Our job is to rally the people for a good cause, for the sake of their security. No government will do things which will put itself into difficulty with the voters and become unpopular in the process. However justifiable, the policy must be explainable, and here the communicative skill will come into play. This is a good policy - that is, a good Report, and I commended the Minister. May I just repeat for his benefit that he is a tough speaking, soft-hearted man. Is a good Report like this to be washed out by a single political blunder? The result is that the good points have been forgotten and the Minister is taken to task on one count. And nobody is talking about the problems of the aged now. Everybody is talking about his savings in the CPF. The Minister's effort, I am afraid, has been washed out out of his own making. And as I said, in politics when the gut feeling is pricked, it will take a long time, a really long time, Mr Speaker, Sir, to rally the people around again so that the other good points in the Report shall rightly deserve their attention by the people. I do beseech the Minister, and I do appeal to this House, to reconsider the question of withholding the CPF at the age of 55 and to extend it to 60 and later to 65. Let people plan their lives. Some of us will retire, hopefully, retire in bliss and gracefully too in the process. Let these people live their lives and let us plan for the future generation. We are not forsaking our responsibility. It is our job and we do not apologize for that - to plan for the future. But let those people we have served, who have contributed to building the Singapore nation, keep what they deserve. 3.04pm

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by the Member for Kebun Baru. At last Friday's Parliament sitting, the Health Minister said that what we are concerned about are the aged 20 years from now. In other words, the aged of the future and not the aged of today. It will not be he, but maybe me. I am not speaking for myself just as he is not speaking for himself. But it shows that the Government is concerned that most of the aged of the future will not be able to make careful calculation in budgetting. They will be in a very difficult situation if they do not know how to make a living. By the time they get to around 60 years old, they may end up in a miserable and helpless situation. So the Government wants them to take pre-cautionary measures by planning ahead. The Minister said that now the medical care is very good. So when a person reaches 65 or above he will still be able to live very well and can do many things. The men will get stronger as they get older. Just like the Member for Alexandra said, they still have the last Spring. To quote the Chinese writer, Ba Jin, it is the Spring in the Autumn. For the women, when they reach that age, they will still be only half old and still retain much of their attractiveness. According to the Health Minister, when that time comes everyone will not have to worry about food and they do not have to worry about clothing. They will be happily enjoying their old age. This is a well intentioned plan. As what the Member for Kampong Chai Chee has said, this is a very good Report. I will give two instances. We have been debating whether the children will be able to get tax relief if their parents live with them. Now the Report says that they need not live with their parents. As long as they can prove that they are supporting their parents, they will get the tax relief. I think this is a very good recommendation. Not all parents would like to stay with their children and not all the children would like to live with their parents. But they are still a family. The second example is that the Report suggests that the tax relief for old men can be raised from the present $4,000 to $12,000 to encourage people above 60 to continue working and they do not have to pay income tax. I think this is also a good recommendation. But there is no acclaim. Since the release of this Report, from what I have heard and what he has heard, those who banged tables and yelled are found everywhere. But those who say something good and those who applaud, I have not come across any. All I have noted is the issue of the withdrawal of CPF. So everybody is questioning the Minister for Health. This is not without reason. In our society today, nobody talks about human relationship which is as thin as paper. People only talk about money. If you ask the old people not to withdraw their CPF savings at 55, of course they will not be happy. Sir, you are a surgeon, you know psychology. The Minister is not a surgeon. He is only a Health Minister. He has to listen to advice on human psychology. Secondly, we live in a tropical country. A person struggles to earn his living during the day incurs mental and physical exhaustion. As the Member for Delta has said, many of them become very weak even before they get old. This is a fact. More important, there is this problem of heart disease and cancer. These two are very common diseases. Because of this the people are worried about how long they are going to live. You can't ensure them long life. How do you convince them? So if we tell them that the withdrawal age of CPF will be raised, of course they will not be happy. Thirdly, we Asians tend to think that very few people could live to the age of 70. So when they reach 60 they would like to celebrate the birthday. The Minister for Health could also celebrate his 60th birthday. By the time they reach 60 and above, if they die out of an accident or anything, they could say that they have nothing to regret as they have already enjoyed life. As what the Member for Kolam Ayer said, they also need to withdraw the money from CPF to perform the Haj. I met a Malay constituent at one of my Meet the People's sessions. He said that there is only one thing in his mind which he would like to raise. I asked him what it was. He said, "It is very important. The CPF is the most important thing in my mind." Fourthly, when a person reaches 55, like what we have been talking about in Parliament these two days, there are these questions: Is that person able to work. Will he be able to get a job? Will he be secure in his work? Nobody knows and nobody can be sure. People say there are two sad things when a person reaches middle age. He finds it difficult to live on and, at the same time, he is not willing to die. Frankly, there is only a small proportion of people, about 2% belonging to the upper middle class who will be able to have a comfortable life when they get old. But the majority of the people have to toil and struggle for, a living. They will have the worries like those raised by the Health Minister. So if you worry for them, you think you are right, But they say we know better ourselves. The Health Minister seems to be concerned about the aged in 20 year's time. But whatever action you are taking you are also affecting those people who are in the 40-50s now, as you are locking up their money. This is too hasty! I wonder whether the Health Minister knows about a very intelligent Prime Minister by the name of Wan An She in the Sung Dynasty of China. He was seen to be creating trouble by his innovative measures. I do not mean the Minister wants to create trouble, but his way of doing things is courting trouble. I have a suggestion. Instead of preventing the people at the age of 55 from withdrawing their CPF savings, why not encourage them to put their money in the POSB, in a special account for the aged? Let there be a special rate of interest for them, and let them withdraw any money any time they like. If they do not withdraw, they will be able to accumulate more. In this way, it is good for them and it is also good for the Government. This is more practical, I think. If the Minister allows it to be done this way, then people will say that it is a farsighted view and it is also practical. The Government has been able to solve many problems in the past 20 odd years. Why not now? Just as the Member for Jalan Kayu has said, I do not believe that we cannot solve this problem, so that 10 or 20 years later, the trees that we have planted today will provide shade for the people 20 years later, and Singapore will be known as a place where the old can find comfort and security. 3.14 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the Chairman, ie. the Minister for Health, and members of the Committee for the very comprehensive Report on the Problems of the Aged and the wide-ranging recommendations to deal with these problems. However, there are several recommendations which need to be reconsidered, and which can be further improved. Society's attitude towards old age is indeed the crucial factor. I agree with the Committee that society should recognize that the elderly can continue to make a good contribution with their "experience, skills, knowledge, talent and wisdom." We must give them every opportunity to maintain their self-respect and to conduct themselves with dignity. On the retirement age for our workers, I would like to make the following comments. Our workers must be given the opportunity to work for as long as possible especially when they are mentally active and physically fit and are willing to continue working. Here, it is necessary to do more to strongly persuade the employers to raise the retirement age of the employees. Although the Government has set the example by raising the retirement age of its employees to 60 years, the employers in the private sector have been slow and rather reluctant to raise the retirement age of their employees, especially their junior and even middle level grade employees. They are generally not enthusiastic to tap the experience, talent, skill and wisdom of their elderly employees. Unless they are taken to task here, they will continue to be slow to respond positively to the call to raise the retirement age. The employers should realize that if they show genuine care and concern for the welfare of their older employees, especially those who have worked hard and have given good, loyal and dedicated service, they will be able to motivate their younger employees to be more loyal and committed to them. Sir, I am not happy with the suggestion that the employees who are given re-employment even on their old job should take a cut in their take-home pay. This will only cause them to lose their self-respect. Our present wage system provides a saving for old age. While this is important for the younger workers, it could be modi- fied for workers who work after their retirement when the need for old age contribution really becomes less crucial. Hence the wage system for the elderly workers could be modified by gradually reducing the provision for old age contribution but always ensuring that the take-home pay is not reduced. I would like also to say that any scheme to prepare workers for old age involving their retraining, exposure to new work methods and so on, must be carefully thought out and be practical as well. For instance, we should not send the elderly workers to training courses designed for younger workers. We should take into account the learning process at that age. Such schemes must be carefully planned and implemented as early as possible so that the workers will have adequate time to make adjustments before they reach retirement age. The proposal to raise withdrawal age for CPF contributions from 55 years to 60 years and later to 65 years is not reasonable. And even more so now, when the customary retirement age is 55 years. Most workers will have some plans or other to use their CPF savings on withdrawal at 55 years. The majority of the workers will certainly exercise prudence to ensure that their hard-earned savings will not be squandered away. However, in planning the use of their CPF savings, I agree that some may not have fully considered the implications of the improvement in life expectancy. Besides, for workers whose CPF savings are not large, it is important for them to ensure that their savings can see them through their old age. Sir, I would like to suggest that the CPF contributors should be allowed to take a partial withdrawal of an amount not exceeding 50% of their CPF savings at 55 years to meet urgent or planned expenditure, for example, to pay for their children's education, to pay for outstanding mortgages which are too expensive to maintain, and so on. As for the balance, a special investment or trust fund can be established and the contributors be required to transfer their balances to this fund for investment purposes. The aim here is to try to maximize the returns on this fund. It could be managed either by the Government or any body which must have the expertise to invest the fund and make it grow at a faster rate than the CPF. If the returns are attractive, the workers, especially those with small CPF savings, can be encouraged to draw less than the 50% allowed so that the balance can be invested in this fund. The workers should be allowed to make full withdrawal of their savings in this fund at 60 years. In the meantime, earnings of the fund's investments can also be considered for distribution to the contributors on an annual basis. Workers who work after their retirement should be allowed to contribute to this special investment fund instead of the CPF. I would like to mention again that generally Muslim workers look forward to using part of their CPF savings at 55 years of age to perform their Haj, together with their spouses. They will be greatly disappointed if the CPF withdrawals are deferred to a later age. I would like to stress also that it is better that they perform their Haj when they are physically fit and healthy rather than wait until they are much older. Partial withdrawal of up to 50% at the age of 55 can therefore help them to some extent. In this connection, I strongly support the proposal made by the Member for Kolam Ayer for a scheme to be devised to be known as DANAMIS (Dana Amanah Masyarakat Islam Singapura or Singapore Muslim Trust Fund) to enable Muslim employees to save for their Haj while they work. In this way, in the future they will not have to depend on their CPF withdrawals to do their Haj. They will then also be able to perform their Haj obligation when they are young, fit and healthy. I hope that agreement can be given to this proposal early. Sir, there is another part of the Report of the Committee on the Aged that I like to comment on. This deals with the Homes for Destitutes and the Aged Sick. The point I would like to make here is that these are areas which the Government should take greater responsibility. While encouragement is given to voluntary bodies to set up such Homes, the Government must always be prepared to provide financial and other assistance to ensure that the Homes are effectively and efficiently managed with adequate staff and other resources. 3.24 pm

( In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, the House is considering the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged and I am glad to participate in the debate. In my opinion the problems of the aged and the CPF withdrawal at the age of 55, which is the present retirement age, should not be treated as one entity. The Minister is an honourable man and I completely agree with him on the care and welfare needs of our senior citizens who have given their best to Singapore in the earlier part of their lives. It is praiseworthy to note that the Committee has gone deeply into this problem and suggested various improvements for the old people. The workers in Singapore have placed their trust with the Government and they eagerly look forward to the day when they could make use of their well-earned savings. In this respect I agree with the Medisave Scheme which takes care of their medical problems. We have now set aside 6% of the contribution for Medisave, and there is a 4% balance which can be used for other purposes. We have to plan for the long term and the CPF is designed for that. People have been relying on the withdrawal of the CPF money to go to other countries to visit their relatives and so on. Some may want to use the money to renovate their houses, to educate their children, or to perform so many other family obligations. But now they are afraid they cannot fulfil all these things. We can accept the other recommendations of the Committee but not the one on the CPF. After five years we can implement the new CPF policy. Manual labourers will not accept these recommendations. But if we compel them, opposition politicians will spread the rumour that we are going to use this money for the MRT project. We have to dispel this rumour, and I hope the Minister will accept the proposal that the present withdrawal age at 55 will be maintained. This is my humble opinion. 3.29 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Committee on the Pro- blems of the Aged has made a comprehensive study covering various aspects of the problems of the greying population. This ranges from employment, financial security, health and recreational needs, institutional care, to a national policy for the elderly. Sir, let me focus my comments on this issue concerning the employment of the aged and the raising of the retirement age. The Committee has suggested that in order to keep the able-bodied elderly persons in gainful employment, the customary retirement age should be deferred as far as possible. At present, retirement age is not legislated in Singapore. It is negotiated between employers and unions. Most collective agreements now provide for retirement at the age of 55. The retirement age of 55 was set years ago at a time when life expectancy was low. In the present context of longer life expectancy, retiring workers at 55 when they are still fit and healthy does not make sense and is rather absurd. There are two compelling reasons why retirement age must be raised. (1) The elderly must be given the opportunity to work for as long as their physical and mental conditions permit. Keeping the elderly in employment is the best way to enable them to retain their normal living style and be active members of the community. Financial independence of the elderly would also reduce the burden which would otherwise fall on the shoulders of the rest of the working population. There is a shortage of manpower in Singapore. The tight labour market which we are facing today is, in my view, not a temporary phenomenon. This is going to be a long-term problem. In view of the size of our population, it is questionable whether we do possess the critical mass required to make Singapore fully viable in all sectors of our economy, including manufacturing, financial services, trade and commerce, construction and communications. There would be fluctuation in the demand for labour which is subject to the economic conditions in Singapore and the world. But in the long run, we have no other alternative but to try to maximize the utilization of our scarce human resources by keeping our citizens in the workforce for as long as possible. Retiring workers in their 5Os is rather unwise and wasteful. However, it cannot be assumed that because new jobs are created every year and there are plenty of employment opportunities, the older workers should find it easy to secure jobs of their choice. There are a number of obstacles to overcome. First, there will be a mis-match between the jobs which are available and the jobs which can be adequately performed by the older workers. There will be unemployment among the older workers, even if new jobs are created which can only be adequately performed by the younger workers. For instance, today we have many job vacancies in the electronic industry. At the same time, there are retrenchments in the woodworking industry where older workers are employed. If we just look at the statistics on the number of jobs available in the market, we may conclude that it should be easy for older workers who are retrenched to find alternative employment. But, in reality, this is not so. We do not expect an old male worker to sit and work alongside an 18-year old girl looking through the microscope in the production line of an electronic company. The thousands of jobs offered by the electronic companies are not suitable and could not be taken up by the retrenched older workers in the other industries. The question we have to answer is: Are suitable jobs available for the older workers? Who should create sufficient number of jobs for our older workers? The Government or the private sector, or both? What are the types of jobs which must be created for our senior citizens in this technological age? Can we just leave it to the natural growth of our economy to create sufficient number of jobs for all our citizens, the young and the old? In my view, to suggest to leave the creation of jobs for older workers to market forces and economic growth is a simplistic answer to a complex problem. Some deliberate intervention by the Government and long-term planning to bring about creation of jobs for the elderly is necessary. I agree with the suggestion put forward by the Committee on the Problems of the Aged that the Government should set the pace by liberally re-employing its employees beyond the age of 65 at wages related to productivity. But the employers in the private sector must also be encouraged to employ workers beyond the customary retirement age of 55. As a matter of fact, one of the most difficult hurdles to overcome is the reluctance of employers to employ older workers. There are prejudices against older workers. The older workers are deemed to be overpaid, less productive, less adaptable and are more prone to accidents and absenteeism. In deciding whether to retain the older workers in the employment, employers take into consideration the worker's salaries and his productivity. If it is possible to employ a younger worker at a lower cost to do the same job for the same output, then the tendency will be to retire the older worker and to employ a younger one. Well, we can try to convince a worker that his wages should be related to his productivity and that he should not insist on the last drawn salary if he is assigned duty which is less demanding or if his productivity deteriorates because of age. But if cost-effectiveness is the only consideration, then we cannot escape from the conclusion that many employers will, in the final analysis, find it more worthwhile to employ younger workers. In the service sector and in the employment of technical and professional personnel, the employers may find justification in employing older workers whose knowledge and experience are assets to the company. But in the manufacturing sector and the employment of blue-collar workers where physical fitness and dexterity are important determinants of performance and productivity, it would not be easy to justify employment of older workers based on the consideration of cost and output. Hence, to leave it to the employers to make their own decision in hiring and firing would not do justice to our older workers. Some form of incentives would be necessary to encourage the companies to employ the older workers. Sir, the problem of the aged is not only peculiar to Singapore. Many developed countries have introduced schemes to tackle the problems of the employment of the elderly. For instance, in Germany, the Government facilitates job placement and further vocational training of older workers by granting wage subsidies or loans to enterprises hiring unemployed over 45 years of age. Sweden has adopted a law aimed at helping older workers with reduced ability to retain their jobs or find other employment. In Japan, as the Member for Kebun Baru has said, the Government has introduced a subsidy plan for employment of older workers. Under this plan, an enterprise will be provided by the Government with a special subsidy if it employs a worker aged 60 and over. It has also introduced a scheme to encourage companies to provide older workers approaching retirement with vocational training so that they may acquire the necessary knowledge or skills for subsequent re-employment. The Government bears the cost of such training. Sir, the Government may not see the necessity to offer any incentives today. But I am sure when we reach the stage when the senior citizens become a large section of our total population, as the Committee has projected in the Report, then we will find the real need for such measures. The Government will find that it is cheaper to subsidize wages of the older workers than to bear the cost of maintaining the unemployed elderly and to lose the productive contributions of the older workers to the economy. Sir, if the Government finds it desirable to pay $10,000 to our young citizens to undergo sterilization to stop producing, in time to come it should find it worthwhile to pay the older workers to continue producing .I do not mean producing children. I mean goods and services. Or put it in another way, the Government should find it worthwhile to provide incentives to employers to engage and to train older workers in productive activities. In the Report, the Committee has suggested that a Central Coordinating Department be set up in the Prime Minister's Office to be charged with implementing the National Policy on senior citizens. I would suggest either this Committee or another special committee should look into this important matter of creating jobs for the aged, promoting the employment of older workers and retraining of older workers. Finally, let me join in the debate on the issue of CPF. The CPF is a saving scheme. The Committee has suggested the raising of CPF withdrawal age from 55 to 60 and then to 65. 1 agree totally with the views expressed by my PAP colleagues in this House that this proposal to raise CPF withdrawal age to 60 or 65 is unreasonable and is totally unacceptable. Today, the normal retirement age in Singapore is still 55 years. There is no law to compel the employer to employ workers up to 65 years old. Even in the future, I do not think it is feasible or practical to legislate retirement age. Under this situation, a worker will lose his means of livelihood if he is forced to retire at 55 and yet is denied the right to withdraw his CPF. This is apart from the fact that he may have other plans to fulfil his life dreams by utilizing the CPF. The other important consideration is that an older worker who is not able to or willing to work full-time should be persuaded either to accept part-ti me employment or to accept a job which is less demanding and hence with lower pay. If he does that, he must be allowed to withdraw at least part of his CPF at the age of 55 to supplement his income. I must stress that the CPF savings belong to the contributors. The savings are theirs. They are not welfare handouts. If CPF is an old-age pension scheme or welfare handout provided by the Government, then the Government perhaps has the right to defer payment until a person has reached an age when he can hardly work or hardly walk. But for a saving scheme like CPF when the contributions come from the members themselves, I strongly believe that the contributors must be allowed to withdraw the savings at 55, at least a substantial portion, if not full. There has been a proposal to distinguish or separate contributions into two portions, one that is contributed to the CPF account before the plan for raising of withdrawal age is introduced, and the other portion is those contributions made after the change is implemented - the so-called old-money and new-money. It is proposed that the CPF members be allowed to withdraw all the old-money, fully, at the age of 55. But the new-money can be withdrawn only after the members have reached the age of 60 or 65. Sir, I do not support this proposal. To me, whether it is old-money or new-money, they are the same. It is their money. If we agree to allow the CPF members to withdraw their CPF either fully or partially at 55, they should be allowed to do so with respect to their full CPF savings, irrespective of when the contributions were made. A more practical and acceptable arrangement which I would suggest is to allow the CPF members to withdraw all their CPF savings on reaching the age of 55, except for a minimum sum of money which must be retained in the CPF account. This remaining sum can only be withdrawn at a later stage or be used to purchase an annuity. This would be similar to the Medisave Scheme where only a minimum sum of money need to be kept in the Medisave Account. In the case of Medisave, members must keep a minimum of $10,000 in the Medisave Account. The rest can be withdrawn on reaching the age of 55. The same principle can be applied to the CPF savings in the Ordinary Account. The Government can determine what is the minimum amount which must be kept in the CPF account. And this minimum amount can be revised from time to time to take into consideration the inflation and the cost of living. So if a person accumulates a sum of, say, $200,000 in the CPF account on reaching 55 and if at that point of time the Government thinks that a person must keep $50,000 in the account to cover old age, then let him withdraw the balance of $150,000. Another point we must note is that if the CPF withdrawal age is deferred till 60 or 65, quite a number of our people will not live long enough to collect their CPF savings. As a matter of fact, one in three Singaporeans will not live long enough to withdraw the CPF savings at the age of 65. So a person may struggle throughout his whole life just to end up dying rich. Mr Speaker, Sir, in recommending the raising of the CPF withdrawal age, the Committee makes the assumption that people will squander away all their money if they are allowed to withdraw their savings at 55. But this assumption is applicable perhaps only to a very small minority of people. The majority of our people do know how to manage their funds. It would be wrong, indeed very very wrong for the Government to introduce a policy which, in an attempt to protect the minority, ends up penalizing the majority. 3.44 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me start by reminding some Members of this House, and especially the Member for Anson, that they have been citing the wrong reason for legislation to look after the old. The Report has stated very clearly and in no uncertain terms that legislation is to ensure financial support for the old and not for filial piety. I refer, Mr Speaker, Sir, to page 43, paragraph 6.4, where the heading of the paragraph states: Legislation for the Support of Aged Parents. It goes on, later in the page, to say, and I quote: 'It should be emphasized that the objective of the legislation is not to legislate filial piety, but to codify an obligation which all sections of the community already recognise and which the vest majority of adult children gladly discharge. it is not meant to be an instrument for use against any but the most blatantly unfilial children. Neither is it meant to be a means for invading the privacy of normal family relationships.' I agree, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we cannot legislate for love, care and filial piety. Filial piety must come from the heart - taught, trained and nurtured at home and in schools. Legislation for financial support for the parents should, therefore, be seriously considered. However, there must be provision in the legislation to exempt those who are neglected by their parents when the children were young and in need of parental care. Moreover, such legislation should only be enforced in the extreme circumstances, as some who cannot support their parents are in no position to support their own family. Perhaps, as an incentive to encourage parental care, the law should allow certain of the children's expenditure for supporting their elderly sick tax deductible items. With the high cost of home rehabilitation equipment, this incentive would be of help to make it easier for the old. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to the Committee's Report in Chapters 4 and 5. It covers a series of support services, including health and recreational needs, social services and institutional care. With regard to institutional care, the Paper proposes two types of Homes for the Aged, namely, Homes for the Aged Sick and Homes for the Destitutes. The Report wants the Ministry of Social Affairs to run the Homes for the Destitutes and commercial and voluntary organizations to run Homes for the Aged Sick. I would like the Committee to re-examine this section on the dependence on commercial and voluntary organizations to run Homes for the Aged Sick. Mr Speaker, Sir, we expect the family to look after the aged healthy. We must not also expect them to look after the aged sick because of reasons beyond their control. I have watched from many years of practice how children slowly lose their cool, their patience, their love for the old, especially the chronic sick, who just lingers on and on. The Hokkien saying, "Wu hao pi ga bu hao" is an appropriate description of this situation. When I asked the children why are they not sending their old sick to the Homes for Aged Sick, their answer is that either there are no places or they are too expensive. I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obligatory for the Government to run Homes for the Aged Sick for at least three reasons: (1) to provide for those who cannot afford the commercial rates; (2) to relieve the burdened families; and (3) to set standards for such homes. Moreover, legislation to ensure minimUm standards of care and stringent rules of admission must be laid down so that the Government's efforts to encourage aged parents to live within their family and the community will continue to be the cornerstone of caring for the old. Let me now turn to the social and recreational support services. Going through the proposal on page 34 and page 35 of the Report, I must admit that these are important support services but, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of the day the old must want to come down to make use and enjoy the services provided. The question is, can he, and will he? Let me explain this in the light of the environment he lives in - the HDB environment, where more than 80% of our population lives. Is the HDB environment, once comfortable and pleasant, slowly becoming hostile to him as he ages? The HDB flats and environment are designed for the active and the healthy, The loss of resources, which ageing by itself or in combination with ill-health, imposes on the individual, will mean that sooner or later he or she will encounter difficulties in the environment he lives in. For example, he will have difficulty in climbing the stairs as our HDB lifts do not stop at each floor. He will have difficulty getting into lifts which are too small and at times close too fast, especially if he is disabled and need a walking stick for support or, worse still, if he is wheel-chair bound. Then again he will find many obstacles and many barriers in his way when he tries to shop at our markets or shops. All these, together with the Asian attitude that when you are old and disabled, you must stay at home, makes him reluctant to go out and he becomes house-bound. When he becomes house-bound, he develops a sense of helplessness and loneliness. This loneliness is further aggravated by members of the family going to work or school. This vicious cycle must be broken, or whatever support services we provide will end up under-utilized and later abandoned. To break this cycle, we must persuade the HDB to develop a barrier-free environment in the new towns and to make the necessary adjustments in the old towns. I am serious about this, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Ministry of National Development must not only build flats and shopping complexes but must relate these with our ageing population and its accompanying social implications. The estate must be planned to be as barrier-free as possible so that the old feel free to move about. There must be suitable areas left for old age activities, either incorporated in the blocks or elsewhere. There should be at least two lifts, one for the active, and one service lift for transporting goods and to accommodate the old, the disabled, especially those who are wheel-chair bound. We must remember that by the turn of the century, there will be many more than 70 years old and this is the age where disability sets in. Next, we must not allow the various support services, that is, the Domiciliary Nursing Care, the Day Care Centres, the Respite Homes and the Meals on Wheels Services to develop in isolation. They must be coordinated by a single body. This is important because in our enthusiasm to provide, we may be over-providing in one area and under-providing in other areas. Thirdly, we must evolve a link between the home and the community. Let me go into some detail. Our small family is faced with a dilemma. To leave the old unattended is to be accused of not being filial. Not to leave the home and work means less money to pay for the home needs. Therefore, it is easier said than done that we must keep the old at home. But at what price? We want our women-folk to work. We want them to have babies. We want them to look after the family. I honestly feel sorry for them. It is not uncommon, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my many years of practice, to find many middleaged couples in a very stressful position of coping, on the one hand, with increasing demands of an elderly relative and, on the other hand, with the problems of a difficult and at times a rebellious teenager. Mr Speaker, Sir, this reminds us that the management of the old must not be treated as an isolated issue. It is tied up with the problems of our small family pattern. It is tied up with the problems of the working family, and it is tied up with the physical constraints of our HDB flats. Mr Speaker, Sir, how then does the community respond to this situation? How do we build this bridge, this link to give the family the support they need? Mr Speaker, Sir, this link between home and the community at large is the Commu- nity Health Team concept I proposed in Parliament during the debate on Medisave. The Second Minister for Health called me an idealist when I made the proposal. I hope the First Minister for Health will not, In fact, I am pleased that in his Report, a proposal to set up health and recreational committees at key community centres strikes a similar note. Perhaps this will one day evolve into the Community Health Team. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my firm belief and conviction that the crucial issue in the delivery of care for the old and chronic sick lies in the provision of good support for the home via the establishment of this team. It will be a link between the hospital and the home. It will link the Outpatient Department to the home. It will link your social and recreational services to the home and, above all, it will link the working family to the elderly at home. It is a practical approach to this issue. If the Minister for Health is prepared to support me, I am prepared to organize such a team in my constituency. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already laid the groundwork. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the most important organizations that has and will con- tinue to play a pivotal role in the caring of the old is the Home Nursing Foundation. It is vital that top priority be given to develop and expand this. I, therefore, regret that the Report on the Role of the Home Nursing Foundation was cursory. The Home Nursing Foundation must be provided with funds to expand and upgrade its services. They could be involved in the training of nurses to man the Domiciliary Nursing Services, Day Care Centres and even Respite Homes. The Ministry of Health must train nurses to be community nurses and not pinch nurses from the hospitals to do the job. If need be, and we are terribly short of girls going into this field. We must seriously look into the possibility of drafting girls into National Service to provide the necessary manpower for the care of not only the old and chronic sick but also as nursing aids in our Civil Defence organisations. Such girls could be trained to go to the homes for the chronic ill or old people to give nursing care and perform minor medical duties. I would, therefore, like to ask the Committee to discourage the employment of foreign nurses to look after our old. It is just not right. I am sure our girls will not let us down, if called upon. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past two days, my fellow MPs have argued about the withdrawal of the CPF. Their views represent the angry feelings and sentiments of most Singaporeans. The Committee cannot ignore this. It will be wrong of me not to add to their protest. I will be very brief. Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear logical, with the raising of the retirement age to 60 or 65, to expect the CPF to be withdrawn at 60 or 65 years. But is this right? What is logical may not necessarily be right. If you have given a man to believe that he will be receiving a sum of money after his life-time of work and then withhold it for whatever good reasons, you are courting trouble. You have created a crisis in him in that his hopes, his aspirations, his expectations are shattered. Is this Government acting like an over-anxious parent trying to anticipate his son's every need, and being overly protective? Will Singaporeans lose their fore-father's adventurous and entrepreneurial spirit that has made Singapore what she is today? If at the age of 55, we still have to take such protective care of him, we cannot have been very good parents. Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that the CPF be withdrawn at the age of 55 years. Whatever CPF money accumulated from working after 55 years be withdrawn at whatever retirement age proposed, i.e. 60 or 65 years. Sir, on the whole, the Committee has produced a fairly good Report. I hope they will consider changing the stand on CPF and thus give the impending old with one less anxiety. 4.03 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope it does not surprise the Minister for Health and other Members that I have sought this opportunity to speak. The CPF happens to fall within the area of responsibility of my Ministry and, unwittingly or deliberately, the Minister for Health and the Committee on the Problems of the Aged have brought about this debate which necessitates some comments from me. Sir, as expected, this debate on the Report has been both lively and interesting, with Members concentrating most of their energies on CPF issues, in particular, on the proposal to raise the withdrawal age. Various comments have also been made on other aspects of CPF generally. Some have protested and criticized the existing uses of CPF for the benefit of its members. On the other hand, other Members have passionately argued for new uses of the CPF. Some of the points raised were repetitions of points at previous sittings, particularly at past Budget sittings. Some other points were new. These points have been noted and will have to be carefully studied for their implications. I do not propose to touch on them now because this is a debate on the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged and not a debate on the CPF. Sir, however, as Minister in charge of the CPF, I would like to express certain important considerations which, in my view, should be taken into account when the Government takes a decision on this question of CPF withdrawal age. On this question of deferment of CPF withdrawal age, views and criticisms have been expressed by Members who have spoken thus far, and their reservations and points fall into different categories. A few have taken the view that no change should be made at all. Some supported a scheme of withdrawals phased out over certain intervals after the age of 55. Some felt that if the withdrawal age is to be deferred, then a distinction should be made between old and new money and that the new withdrawal age should apply to contributions received after the implementation date. Other Members wanted to draw a distinction between new and current CPF contributors and suggested that any new withdrawal age should apply only to new contributors. Several MPs supported deferment of the withdrawal age provided, however, that this was linked to an actual raising of the retirement age. Yet others, Mr Speaker, Sir, suggested voluntary or optional deferment age and suggested a variety of attractive incentives for them to opt for such deferred withdrawal age, such as a two-tier interest rate scheme. Other Members had suggestions which combine one or more of these approaches. In support of their criticisms and proposals, several of the hon. Members made the following pertinent points: First, they felt that there are many people who will not squander their CPF balances; Second, they felt that there are many people who can be left to take care of themselves; Third, they felt that if the 55 years withdrawal age is to be deferred, then it is reasonable that this should be staggered over several phases up to 65. Sir, in the midst of all this debate, it may be useful to come back to certain basics. What is CPF? Why was it instituted? What is its objective? Its fundamental objective in my view, Sir, is to ensure financial security for old age. That is the basic objective from which we should not depart. We have allowed usage of CPF funds before the age of 55 for approved housing schemes, SBS shares, Home Protection Insurance Scheme, Medisave, all of which are consistent with security for old age. Similarly, Sir, when proposals are mooted for new uses of CPF, whether it be for education, home renovation or for travel abroad, whether for pleasure or for religious purposes, these must be appraised on whether they advance or are consistent with this objective of ensuring security for old age. Likewise, Sir, it is my view that any modification or change to be made to any withdrawal age must be related also to this fundamental objective. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged has dramatically highlighted the implications of changing demographic patterns and projections of old age structure of our population. Life expectancy has increased. There will be more aged persons in our society. No one can deny that all this has a direct bearing and a serious effect on the financial security of our senior citizens. As a responsible Government, we must address this problem. We must alert our people. It seems to me, therefore, that we must ask ourselves certain fundamental questions. Can we honestly say that we are satisfied that all of our citizens who withdraw their CPF savings at the age of 55 will be able to carefully manage their savings to tide them over the next 10 years to the age of 65, or even for the next 20 years to the age of 75? We must not forget in this regard that there will be a greater number of older persons with fewer children to support them when they have financial problems. There are already such casualties today. What more with more old people in the future? Secondly, if we are satisfied, then of course there is no problem. But if we are not satisfied, then the question is: is it not the obligation of the Government to ensure that suitable modifications are made to the withdrawal age, so that in respect of withdrawal of the entire sum at 55, there would be at least a minimum sum, the withdrawal of which could be staggered, say, over a period of 10 years? Is this not an obligation of the Government? No one will be happier than the Government, I am sure, if we could categorically state that we are confident in the ability of every one to manage their CPF savings efficiently to tide them over the 10 or 20 years after the age of 55. Sir, we can look at the problem in a different way. What does it cost an individual to meet his basic needs after retirement? $200 a month? If we take that figure, a person will need about $24,000 to tide him over the next 10 years to the age of 65, not taking into account inflation and so on. If we think $200 is too meagre a figure and we put it at $250, then he would need $30,000. Suppose at 55, a person has a balance which we may determine to be the minimum necessary, or even less, the critical question is: can he carefully or prudently manage this balance and spread it over the next 10 to 15 years? Can we ensure that he will not become destitute, whereupon taxpayers' money will have to be used to dole out social welfare payments? Sir, several Members have said that most of our Singaporeans can be left to manage their resources on their own after the age of 55. They have also criticized any blanket rule which postpones the withdrawal age and which does not take into account the quantum of the contributor's balance. Sir, I think there is merit in their arguments. However, what has to be stressed is that while the majority may be able to manage their CPF balances in a way that makes them self-sufficient for the rest of their years, there are also people who do not have this ability. The Member for Kebun Baru has said that the "vast majority" of Singaporeans know best how to invest their money and maximize returns. Sir, I believe he is right. In this regard, the Member for Alexandra felt that the number of persons who may not be able to manage their CPF balances was small. As such, he felt that the majority should not, as he put it, be made to pay for the sins of a minority in having the CPF held back five to 10 years or more. But what about the minority? If the majority of our citizens are able to look after themselves and their families, this should not cloud the fact that there are persons who are unable to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, our target of concern, then, is really with the minority, who are not able to husband whatever balances they have left in their CPF accounts at the age of 55. They are persons whose CPF balances are low and who, if the CPF balance is withdrawn in its entirety at the age of 55, may not be able to efficiently manage the amount to tide them over in the ensuing years. These are persons who are the lower paid of our population. Some of them may be prudent, others will not be able to manage their CPF savings because they do not have the experience or the expertise. Sir, if Members are sceptical that there are such persons, let me give them certain figures. As at May, 1984, 15,800 or 12% of the HDB tenants are in arrears of rental payment for one month or more. Further, 24,400 or 7% HDB flat owners are in arrears of payment for one month or more of their monthly loan instalment payment. These figures show that about 40,000 families, comprising 9% of the households in HDB flats, have difficulties in managing their monthly cash flow, if not other financial difficulties. In addition, many of us have also had cases in our constituencies of families who are in arrears of PUB bills and even have had their supplies cut off. In many of these cases, this may not be due to lack of income but more due to inability to manage their income and expenditure. If they are unable now to manage their monthly or fortnightly salary, can all of them manage their CPF balances for as long a period as 10 years, or even more? Therefore, Sir, the Government has a responsibility, in my view, to anticipate future problems that may be faced by some senior citizens and their families and to take corrective action to reduce hardships. Let us take the Home Protection Insurance Scheme instituted by CPF, for instance. Since it came into operation on 1st January 1982 up till now, 634 families (where the CPF contributor died with outstanding sums due) were paid a total of $5.7 million, averaging $8,900 per case. If it were not for the HPIS, I can state with confidence that many of these 634 cases would have been evicted from their homes. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my considered view, therefore, that the Government's approach to the question of withdrawal age should be guided by the following principles. First, there should be determined a minimum amount which can be reasonably deemed necessary as the basic amount an individual may need to see him through the next 10 years after 55 (or for the 10 years after 65 since on present trends we can assume more persons between 55 and 65 will be working and earning). Secondly, any CPF balances at or below the stipulated minimum amount can only be withdrawn at staggered intervals so that a person will receive a certain sum to see him through the intervening years until the next withdrawal. Thirdly, all contributors should be subjected to the staggered withdrawal of this minimum amount. Fourthly, contributors who have amounts in their CPF balances in excess of such basic minimum amount should be allowed to withdraw such excess at the age of 55. Mr Speaker, Sir, an approach along the lines I have mentioned can be a reasonable basis to guide Government in taking a decision on this question of CPF withdrawal age. Such an approach, I believe, will enable us to meet our concerns and, at the same time, allow persons who have balances in excess of what is the minimum necessary to withdraw at the age of 55 and to use it for whatever purposes they consider necessary. Finally, Sir, I also believe that such an approach would also accommodate the views of many MPs who have spoken in the debate, such as the most recently expressed comment of the Member for Boon Lay. The problem is not one for which there is an easy solution. The approach I have mentioned as well as other workable alternatives, including suggestions made by hon. Members during this debate and those which will be made by the speakers who are scheduled to speak later, will have to be carefully considered by Government before a decision is taken. 4.23 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by commending the Committee on the Problems of the Aged for presenting to us a very comprehensive Report with several very good recommendations on tackling the problems of the aged. These are the problems that Singapore has to face up to, as its population ages. The Report since its publication has unfortunately attracted a great deal of controversy and heat over one issue, namely, the raising of the withdrawal age for CPF contributions. While this is under- standable, it is a pity that the other recommendations and portions of the Report which are equally, if not, more significant, are not given the due attention that they deserve. Judging from the response of the hon. Members of this House to this Report up to now, I am sure the wide-ranging debate here will permit the Report and its recommendations to be given a comprehensive, critical and objective airing. Then we should be able to view the Report and recommendations in their correct perspective. This Report and the issues it covers are important and relevant to all Singaporeans, if not for all the time, at least for some of the time, for we must all grow old one day and live with the prospect of feeling neglected and unwanted by society, and possibly even by our children. This depressing feeling can also be further worsened by our own realization of uselessness, of deteriorating health and weakening vigour of life, with nothing to look forward to except the prospect of welcoming death. This is a terrible gloomy picture. Such gloomy pictures of life in its evening years are a common and unavoidable feature in the history of the human race. On the other hand, there are also the inspiring and heart-warming stories of people who have conquered the fear of growing old and have lived out their evening years of life gracefully as well as usefully, perhaps with as much zest and meaning as when they were young. Singapore should not view the prospect of an ageing population with temerity and anxiety, but should rather adopt a positive and constructive attitude towards it. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I particularly like the recommendations in Chapter 1 of the Report under the heading "Overview - A National Policy for the Elderly". Underlying these recommendations is a very positive tone and a call to society to change its negative attitude to a positive one towards old age. I fully endorse the views expressed in this chapter. The Committee deserves top marks forth is chapter. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot say the same for Chapter 2 under the heading "Employment". On this question of raising the age for CPF withdrawal, like my other colleagues, I am also against the idea of the deferment of the withdrawal age, particularly at this juncture when the retirement age for the majority of workers is 55. Sir, I do not want to bore you and the Minister for Health with the arguments why I am against it because I think all the arguments have already been advanced so eloquently by my colleagues, and repeating them will be boring to you. When I say my Parliamentary colleagues, I mean my PAP Parliamentary colleagues, not the Member for Anson. It is not because the Member belongs to a different party, but I just cannot follow his arguments.If I recollect correctly, I think he said that the Government is cheating in deferring the withdrawal age to 65 because people will die before 65 so that money will be put back into the Consolidated Fund. And then later on he corrected himself, "if they do not nominate anyone." I am no lawyer, Mr Speaker, Sir, but as a layman, I know that no matter what happens the money cannot be reverted to the Consolidated Fund, even if the contributor did not nominate anyone.

What happens to the unclaimed monies?

Well, there is the law of the State. An hon. Member: Official Assignee.

Yes, the Official Assignee. That does not go to the Consolidated Fund. Then his second argument is, because the people have to contribute 25%, they are suffering. Well, I do not know which people he is referring to, but I think people with their 25% and their employer's 25% contribution to the CPF are able to purchase HDB flats. The people who are really suffering are the Minister for National Development and the HDB staff because they are under pressure to build more HDB flats. They are constantly being criticized for not coming up with enough HDB flats. Of all the speeches I have heard today, I must say the Minister for Labour's speech is the best. It is not because he is the most eloquent. I know he is a very eloquent speaker but I am not talking about that. But today he speaks in his capacity as the Minister for Labour. I know the Minister for Health is very important in the Cabinet, but he sits in the Committee only as the Chairman of an ad hoc Committee which has not got Government authority or mandate. So whatever he reports is non-official. Well, he can say anything but it does not matter. Following the Report, several Ministers have responded. They also said they spoke their personal views. But today the Minister for Labour in Parliament cannot be speaking his personal view. This subject is under his portfolio. So I think what he says is a fair indication of the Government's response, a very positive response, to public reaction to that particular portion of the Report concerning the withdrawal age of the CPF. The principles that the Minister has enunciated represent a very reasonable compromise, especially when he has advanced very reasoned and persuasive arguments as to why we must not neglect a certain section of our society who for various reasons are not able to look after themselves. The Government has got the responsibility. Now the problem is how to translate his principles in such a way that the people are happy with their implementation. My experience, especially with the Ministry of Education, is that although some proposals contain very good principles they are sometimes badly implemented. I think the Second Minister for Health mentioned about old money and new money. It is an idea and perhaps the portion for retention that the Hon. Minister for Labour is talking about will probably come from the new money and not the old money; something like that. I have no time to think about it but I am sure -

What are you saying?

I am sure in the discussion, something that is sensible and responsible and much more acceptable to the public will come out of it. Even the Minister for Health is nodding his head in agreement. Let me come to the next point about continued employment after retirement age, particularly at 55. I am not sure the recommendations of the Committee are going to achieve any result. Some of the recommendations sound more like irrelevant platitudes than the realistic suggestions they are supposed to be. Let me quote a few examples. One of the recommendations states that the Government should set the pace by liberally employing its employees beyond 65. Is the Committee not aware that the Government does not even employ the bulk of its employees who retire at 55? And you are now asking the Government to liberally employ them after 65, Even after 55, the Government does not employ them. I am aware that a few selected civil servants were offered re-employment after retiring at 55, and even in this category of selected officers not all were offered the same terms of re-employment, Some were offered more attractive terms of re-employment than others. Why this disparity of treatment even among the chosen few? With this unenlightened policy of the Government on re-employment of retired civil servants, how are we going to get the Government to set the pace for other employers in Singapore to re-employ retired people? Let me now come to the recommendation that employers should not be exempted from paying CPF contributions, SDF and payroll tax in respect of elderly workers. In my view, this may be unrealistic and counter-productive in relation to those workers beyond the age of 60 years. As we all know, a person's employment opportunities become scarce, if not, completely disappear, after 60 years of age simply because his physical and mental capacity to work is such that it is not likely to induce a prospective employer to hire him. If the employer is required to pay the same top wages to the elderly worker, with 25% CPF contributions as well as SDF and payroll tax, you can be sure the employer would prefer not to hire a worker aged 60 years or more, If the employer is permitted to opt not to pay CPF and SDF contributions as well as payroll tax for an elderly worker beyond 60, the employer will find it an incentive to employ him. Furthermore, the incentive for the employer becomes even more attractive if the employee is also permitted to opt not to pay his 25% CPF contribution. Then the employer can employ him at 75% of his last drawn salary. This does not result in any loss of take-home pay for the worker. There is, in fact, no loss in take-home pay except loss of CPF contributions. It saves the employer at least 50% of his large wage bill on him. This makes it attractive for the employer to employ him. Of course, to compensate for the loss of CPF contributions, the elderly worker beyond 60 should work perhaps only a five-day week and should have his annual leave eligibility increased. I am aware that some fortunate elderly workers, because of their experience and expertise and the special circumstances they are in, can still command very attractive terms of employment. My proposal does not preclude this category of elderly workers from freely negotiating with their employers on more favourable terms, including the present pattern of CPF contributions. The essence of my proposal is that, for the elderly worker beyond 60, CPF contributions by both employer and employee should not be obligatory as in other cases. This is to make it more possible for employers to hire elderly workers beyond 60 and, at the same time, make it more likely for an elderly worker beyond 60 to continue to be employed. The requirement that an employer has to pay CPF and SDF contributions as well as payroll tax for a worker beyond 60 is going to stiffen the resistance of the employer against employing anyone beyond 60. It would have a negative effect on our effort to get as many able-bodied Singaporeans beyond 60 to be usefully and gainfully employed. Let me now comment on the proposal of the Committee that HDB should allow those owner-occupiers, who do not have children living with them and who do not have adequate savings, to purchase an annuity from or through HDB with either the consideration of the reversionary interest in the flat or financing through the difference in the prices when a bigger flat is exchanged for a smaller flat. In my view, this proposal is very sound and will effectively provide some financial security to those who have utilized a great portion of their CPF savings on the purchase of HDB flats and are in need of financial assistance in their old age because they do not have adequate savings to see them through for the rest of their lives. I hope the Government will not only accept this proposal but also direct the HDB to work out attractive schemes when implementing this proposal. Finally, let me comment on the proposal that the programme of family life education for newly-married couples should be introduced. I think the proposal is good, but it is not enough. Perhaps a similar programme with a different content should also be introduced through the community centres or the RCs for senior citizens on how to cope and adjust to new home environment, particularly on how to relate themselves to better educated sons and educated daughters-in-law, Often, family quarrels are the result of the inability of various parties to adjust to one another. Invariably the daughters-in-law get the blame for the breakdown of the family relationship. Perhaps this is justified in some instances, but it must also be said a few fathers and mothers-in-law are also difficult to live with. As the saying goes, it is not always the young who is wrong nor is it always the old who is right. To create a family environment in which harmony and respect can flourish, everyone must play a part, the old, the not-so-old and the young. It is only when everyone appreciates that, can a harmonious and respectful family environment be a fact of life in Singapore.

I propose to take a break now. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.10 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.38 pm until 5.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to lend support to the amended motion standing in the name of the Member for Kebun Baru on the Problems of the Aged. The terms of reference of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged is commendable. I am glad that the Government is farsighted and is tackling this problem now, long before it becomes a serious problem. This has always been the hall-mark of our Government. I am further comforted by the composition of the Committee, in particular the Chairman who, in spite of a seemingly hard exterior, has a heart of gold. Knowing him, I have no doubt that the problems of the aged must have been thoroughly deliberated by the Committee. Sir, we all have to grow old one day. All of us feel we could take care of ourselves when we reach that stage but there are times in which plans do not turn out the way it should be - the way we want it to be. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the people in this category should be well-cared for. I think the Government will do so, not only because our people deserve it but because our Government has always been one which looks after its people for the overall good of the nation. The Committee's Report came up with 35 major recommendations to solve the problems of the aged in the future. Allow me to say, Sir, that as a rule the Report has been comprehensive and is good. The Committee should be congratulated for a job well done. However, every rule tends to have exceptions. This Report is no different. Discussions with my constituents have highlighted several areas of concern. I understand the noble intention of the recommendations. But whilst I understand them, I cannot with clear conscience lend my support to them without appropriate amendments being made. My constituents and I are quite concerned about the implementation of these recommendations. There are three areas which I wish to comment on. First, Social Services and Institutional Care. At the outset, let me state in no uncertain terms that social services, in particular the care for the aged, is an obligation of the Government to its people. There is no two-way about it. However, if we look at the social services that have been provided in this direction, and we look at them objectively, it has not been enough. I say this not because nothing was done. I feel more could be done and I do not mean more of the same of what is being done now. We should be creative in providing social services. We have done so in the case of our defence, in the case of health services and even housing. Why not social services? From press reports recently, it appears that the Government is planning for a new Ministry to enlarge and hopefully enrich the portfolio of social services, something called Community Development. This is welcome because we have addressed the problems of unemployment, housing and now security. To my mind, this Ministry of Community Development would be a very important Ministry because Singapore has reached a stage in nation building whereby community development is an essential step towards either making or breaking us as a nation. Otherwise, complacency will set in and affluence will take its ugly toll. The problems of the aged should be the first item on the long list of priorities to be sorted out. Surely we can expect some fresh thinking, now that we have a new Minister. I agree wholeheartedly that legislation must be strengthened for the control of the homes of the aged to ensure that minimum accepted standards are instituted, monitored and enforced. However, I disagree that we should not allow commer- cially-run homes. We have always used the price mechanism with success.[ notice that whilst we have Government-run day-care centres for the lower income group, we also have up-market commercially-run centres which are well-patronized by different sections of the population. This is also the case of the Government hospitals vis-a-vis private hospitals. As long as there is sufficient legislation to ensure that there is no abuse by these homes for the aged, I can see no reason why they cannot be run on a commercial basis. Let the entrepreneurs decide. Besides providing competition to the homes that are run by the Government and the social organizations, it would also cater for a section of Singaporeans who would wish to be housed for their own reasons in such homes and have the means to opt for it. For such homes to be commercially viable, they have to provide and maintain good services. This is apparent in the case of private hospitals where the Government hospitals set the standards and the private hospitals strive hard to better them in order to survive. On family relations, I welcome the recommendation of amending the Income Tax Act to take cognizance of the fact that there are many filial children in Singapore who are financially assisting their aged parents and yet not staying together because the parents may have more than one child, Whilst I understand the symbolic and deterrent nature of legislation as submitted by the Committee, nevertheless, being Asian, I cannot accept having legislation passed to compel children to support their aged parents. If this need to be done, there is something wrong with our society. I do not think this is the case and, therefore, there must be other ways of doing it. If the parents have been taking good care of their children, I am confident that the children will reciprocate when their parents are old by taking care of them. Otherwise, if the grown-up children neglect their parents, their own children will later give them the same treatment when the time comes. This is nature's way of ensuring a check and balance system. Some, like my colleague, the Member for Whampoa, may call it "divine retribution". Legislation, Sir, will not cure everything although in Singapore we have succeeded using legislation with most of our social engineering campaigns. However, I am prepared to be persuaded but would only reluctantly agree with legislation to this effect as a last resort. In which case, we should seriously re-examine and consider whether the society we are living in is worth saving. Above all, in spite of the western influences, I am confident that with proper and even aggressive moral education of our young, coupled with our Asian culture and values, this unhappy state of affairs whereby the young forsake the old would not happen, at least not in the next generation or two. Sir, coming back to the CPF withdrawal age, since the start of the CPF scheme, we have known the withdrawal age to be 55 and yet many contributors were not able to enjoy the CPF savings because people do die before 55, as statistics have shown. I know that generally the life expectancy is now higher. I understand also the rationale that it would appear to be strange to have the CPF totally withdrawn at 55 while the retirement age is higher than 55. The Government could also change this withdrawal age to any age they want. It is also a natural human tendency to want to have the money as soon as they can get it, in this case, at 55. Sir, I totally disagree with the increase of the withdrawal age of CPF savings to 60 or, worse, to 65. It is simplistic to think that people below the age of 50 have not made plans as to what they wish to do with their CPF savings when they reach the CPF withdrawal age. Most people, if not all, are looking forward to this date long before the time. To change, it would cause undue frustration to their well-laid plans. Although the recommendation is made with good intentions, we must recognize the other needs of the people. For instance, some people would wish to use the money to go for further studies, to pursue their own life-long ambitions. Some may want to see their children through university, having married late in life. I understand the principles as advanced by the Minister for Labour just now. However, Sir, I find great difficulty in reconciling the fact that while his Ministry is not in favour of CPF savings withdrawn at 55 to be used for travel abroad, either for pleasure or for religious reasons, he approves the CPF money being used for local travel, that is, to travel on SBS buses. For the Muslims, for instance, they look forward to this money to perform the Haj pilgrimage which, as we are aware, is a "divine command" and must be performed when they are physically capable of doing it at least once in a life-time. To ask them to go on the Haj pilgrimage five or ten years later would increase the risk that they might not be in good physical condition to perform the Haj. Therefore, mindful of the objectives of the CPF, I am suggesting that at 55 there should be a partial withdrawal of at least 50% and the balance of the CPF savings could be withdrawn at regular intervals. In this respect, it appears that I concur with the Minister's principles. Furthermore, Sir, for the last two years, Muslim Members of the House have been speaking on the Tabung Haji concept and if this could be implemented much to the benefit of the Muslim population, then the withdrawal of the CPF could be somewhat tied-up with it. As suggested two days ago, on Friday, by the Member for Kolam Ayer, I support the formation of DANAMIS (Dana Amanah Masyarakat Islam Singapura or Singapore Muslim Trust Fund) because this would certainly enhance the Government's quest to assist oUr people, in this case the Muslims, to not only perform the Haj but also to upgrade themselves. If DANAMIS is approved using the CPF mechanism, this would be the best thing that has happened to date for the Muslims in Singapore. The potential is tremendous and the future is extremely bright. I am confident that all Muslims in Singapore will welcome this. Coming back to the Committee's recommendation of raising the CPF withdrawal age, it would be unfair, to say the least, to even suggest that some of our people would, in a moment of madness, blow off all the CPF savings withdrawn, in unnecessary consumption, if allowed to withdraw at 55. Firstly, who are you to decide what is necessary for them? It may be unnecessary in the Committee's view but very important to the person. After all, it is his money. Secondly, if the premise is true, then deferring the withdrawal age will not remedy the situation. In fact, it will aggravate it further. Now the person with- drawing it at 65 will have more to spend on what the Committee considers to be unnecessary and less time to spend it, if statistics do not lie. Happily this unfair premise is not true. All in all, Sir, I subscribe to a partial withdrawal at 55, and I am suggesting that a partial withdrawal would be substantial enough for the contributors to carry out their plans and the balance of the CPF savings would be sufficient to cater for their needs after their retirement. In conclusion, I must say that the Committee has done a good job. The problems of the aged have been comprehensively examined and the recommendations are all made with good intention. Together with my constituents, I am concerned with the implementation of this good intention because we all know that if the implementation is badly done, the good intention would be easily misconstrued, especially more so when it causes undue frustration and hardship to our people. I hope the Government would only adopt the Report after carefully thinking over the method of implementation. It would be prudent for the Government in this case particularly the change of CPF withdrawal age, to be slow rather than sorry.

Mr Jeyaretnam, you cannot move your amendment until the Minister has replied. 5.26pm

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to face the fact that our population is ageing gradually. That man's life span has been increased is made possible by social advances and civilization, the fruit of human endeavour and hence, the fullest effective use should be made of this extended life expectancy for the contribution of the aged to continue to benefit mankind. Apart from research on the illnesses of the aged which are unique to them and the caring of the aged people, a better and more scientific arrangement should be made for their social activities, occupation, studies and spiritual activities so as to enable them to live a fuller life and continue to contribute to the society. The Committee's Report aims at anticipating the problems of our ageing population and recommending measures to solve these problems. It is an excellent substantial Report. However, what causes regret is the proposal to raise the withdrawal age of CPF from 55 to 60 or 65 years old without taking into consideration the issue of comparable retirement age. This has aroused the anxiety and fear of quite a substantial proportion of our population. They are worried that they would not be able to withdraw their life-long CPF savings and enjoying it at a time when they most need it when they retire. For the past two or three months, ever since the publication of the Report, there have been talks and debates on it everywhere. Most of them feel unhappy about the raising of the withdrawal age of CPF, and thus the other more praiseworthy recommendations in the Report dealing with the care of the aged have been neglected. To put aside a part of their savings in the form of CPF for their retirement is accepted by everybody. It is a correct measure. It also accords with the principle of self-help. At the present juncture, most private companies and Government departments retire their employees at 55. On the other hand, the Report recommends that with effect from 1st July this year, the withdrawal age of CPF will be raised to 60. Thus, the workers would not be able to touch their CPF savings on retirement. If they are not able to find an alternative job, how are they going to live? As the Minister without Portfolio and the Secretary-General of the NTUC, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, has said, this is a very unreasonable proposal. The withdrawal age of CPF savings should be related to the retirement age. In other words, if a worker retires at 55, he should be allowed to withdraw his CPF at 55. It is only when workers in the Government service and most of the private companies have their retirement age raised to 60, should their CPF withdrawal age also be deferred to 60. It is only logical. In this way, retirees will not be deprived of their normal means of livelihood and it will also reduce the state of dilemma and anxiety. The social problem behind the ageing of the population is that the State has to fork out vast sums of money in the form of pension, medical expenditure and the like, which are bound to increase year by year. The shrinking of our labour force will bring about failing production and a slow-down of our economic growth. If this is not tackled properly, it will lead to inflation which will seriously undermine our economic growth. The setting up of a coordinating body with the responsibility to look into the problems of all aspects of life of the aged and to make recommendations to deal with such problems is timely and appropriate. This anticipatory approach is typical of a Government which has all along been undaunting in facing problems and realities and in tackling its responsibilities. However, according to a report of the Retirees' People's Association Club, retirees at 55 years old have found it difficult to find jobs. The national Coordinating Committee on the Aged should look into the causes and provide facilities for the training and retraining of retirees so as to enable them to get new employment if they eire still in good health. This will reduce the Government's burden of looking after them. The Government should set an example in raising the retirement age of workers so as to influence the private sector to do the same. Once the retirement age is raised from 55, older workers can go on working and be productive. This will alleviate the problem of a shrinking young labour force at the same time help the continued economic development of the nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should encourage young children to be filial to their elders and to support their aged parents as this is a virtue, and greater emphasis and publicity should be given to this aspect. The Committee's recommendation that tax relief for the support of aged parents be increased is a correct measure. To legislate to provide for the support of aged parents by their young children would reciprocate parents' past effort in bringing up the young. This measure has the general approval of the society. It is wrong and a shame for either the parents or the children not to look after the other. It is hoped that filial piety will become part of the ethos of our society without the need for its legislation. If our young children can look after their aged parents and the Coordinating Committee, in conjunction with the NTUC, can look to getting new employment opportunities for our aged workers, then the aged may not have to worry about their livelihood but may continue to enjoy working and living in security and contentment. I firmly believe that to effectively control the problems of the aged, we should actively develop our human resources. There is a saying that we should keep on learning as long as we live. And I would add that we should keep on working as long as we live, so that life may be more meaningful and our country may become prosperous and strong. 5.34 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, Problems of the Aged, I think, we will agree is an issue which affects all of us. While I recognize that not all of us here in this Chamber can be categorized as aged, whatever the cut-off point may be, be it 55, 65 or even 70 years as Was mentioned yesterday, there is one fact of life which is immutable, and that is, everyone of us is ageing. And so is the rest of Singapore. Hence, I feel very strongly that it is only right that the subject of Problems of the Aged be thoroughly discussed and the implications of the Committee's recommendations be understood, not only in Parliament but also by every adult Singaporean. Sir, for this reason, the Minister for Health and his Committee ought to be congratulated for drawing the public's attention to the problems of the aged, although I must admit they have done so in a rather over-dramatic way, and that is, by threatening to put a padlock on our workers' life savings or at least part of it and then keeping the key for another 10 years. In fact, based on the remarks made by my colleagues earlier, there is even a general feeling among Singaporeans that the key may eventually be thrown away. However, the important point to bear in mind is that the Committee, by putting their minds to bear on this very important problem, has recommended a National Policy for the Elderly. And I feel that this is a very timely and important step indeed in the light of the ageing society we are in. The Committee, if I may be allowed to recapitulate, has illustrated vividly the changing demographic pattern of our population. In the distribution of our population by age, as shown by the Report's charts of age group against numbers of people, there is a distinct shift from a pyramidal shape to a barrel shape over the period just spanning some 50 years, 1980 to 2030. And I would hazard a guess that if extended for another 50 years, the shape of the chart could well be an inverted truncated pyramid. In simple terms, this means that the proportion of aged people over the whole population will increase and will continue to increase unabatedly, In fact, Table 1.1 on page 10 spells out the trend of the old dependency ratio which is the ratio of persons 15 to 64 years to persons 65 years and above. And this ratio is forecast to change from 34:1 to 3.2:1 over the period 1947 to 2030, barely 80 years. Given this dramatic change to be expected over the next 45 years, i.e. from now until the year 2030, the Committee has quite rightly made 35 recommendations on how to deal with the Problems of the Aged. Going through these recommendations, it appears to me that there are two underlying aims to these recommendations, and I would like to highlight both of them. They are, firstly, to help the aged so that they are better equipped physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically and, of course, financially to help themselves. The second aim, I feel, is to correct society's attitude towards older workers and inculcate in Singaporeans the desire to show respect and affection for the elderly. Let me hasten to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these aims, in my view, are laudable and deserve our full support. However, based on the comments made during the past two sittings, some of these recommendations have attracted all the attention while the rest did not draw as much as a remark. Those recommendations dealing with the age at which a person can withdraw his CPF and the raising of the retirement age, quite expectedly, drew the sharpest reactions. I too will return to these two matters. But first let me at the outset state that I endorse fully the philosophy and motives behind these 35 recommendations. It is their implementation that I feel warrants closer attention. In this respect, I have the following three suggestions for the Minister's consideration. Firstly, most of these recommendations will require Government authorities to draw up implementation plans if they are to be meaningful at all. In doing so, I wish to remind those responsible to display the right attitude towards the aged, namely the very same attitude that we want to see instilled in Singaporeans. We cannot have it any other way. It will be sad indeed, to see the Minister and his Committee preaching one policy and principle while Government departments practised another. For example, it will definitely be untenable for Homes for the Aged or senior citizens' clubs to be classified as commercial organizations when levying charges, fees or rentals, if clearly such organizations and Homes are run on a non-profit making basis. The second suggestion I have for the Minister to consider relates to the recommendations that require Government support and action. I would like to see these recommendations implemented promptly to demonstrate Government's concern for the problem at hand, and not just recommendations on paper. For I feel it is by positive action and example by the Government that we can change society's attitude towards old age. I would therefore urge that, as a matter of public policy, Government departments and statutory boards must adopt the spirit of the recommendations when dealing with requests made by charitable organizations for assistance. This will reduce effort and time spent in arguing over rules and regulations and this time and effort can be spent more productively in the areas which require much Government support, namely, in meeting the aged's health and recreational needs, and helping voluntary organizations set up social services and institutional care. My third suggestion for the Minister is that as a major employer, Government and statutory boards can and ought to set the pace in implementing the recommendations that will help employees extend their useful working life. This is not merely done by raising the retirement age but, more importantly, by retraining workers or giving older workers the option to work part-time or opportunities to secure alternative jobs in line with their capabilities. The crux of the matter, Sir, is to provide more opportunities to older workers to remain productive and useful for a longer period of time. This is crucial for this will help older workers lead more meaningful lives and help them emotionally, physically and financially, to remain integrated with society instead of feeling alienated. In this respect, my colleagues from the NTUC have rightly lamented the absence of a recommendation for employers to do their part in raising the retirement age or in providing opportunities to retain workers beyond 55 years of age. However, may I suggest that since NTUC is a fairly large employer through its many cooperatives and SLF companies, it could consider setting the lead in drawing up a scheme which could subsequently be used as a model by others. What better way is there than for unions to negotiate with employers, who are also unionists, to get the scheme going. This effort, together with Government's efforts for its employees, will give a tremendous impetus in encouraging employers to change their attitude towards older workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to turn to the rather thorny problem, and that is, to address the matter on the proposal to raise the age at which a person can withdraw his CPF savings. This proposal, quite understandably, has attracted a barrage of criticisms since in effect the recommendation will change the ground rules for access to one's life savings. I feel that a number of inconsistencies exist in this recommendation, notwithstanding the remarks made by the Hon. Minister for Labour earlier on. These inconsistencies have to be resolved before any proposal can be finalized. Let me cite briefly four such inconsistencies. Firstly, the Report has suggested that the age to withdraw CPF be raised from 55 to 60, and eventually to 65 years, in line with the raising of the retirement age. This sounds very reasonable. However, as we all know, the retirement age is not likely to be raised universally until many years hence, unless it is done by legislation. Yet it does appear from the Report that the proposal to raise the age to withdraw CPF contributions will be implemented rather promptly. In fact, the date of 1st July, 1984, has been suggested. This inconsistency must be given careful consideration before any firm decision is made on this matter. The second inconsistency relates to the assertion made for raising the age to withdraw CPF. The Report states quite categorically, and I quote: 'Withdrawal before retirement would encourage unnecessary consumption and, in some cases, misuse of savings, resulting in little or no balance for retirement'. I will be the first to admit, Sir, that cases of unwise expenditure there will always be, for after all we are dealing with human nature. But can we extend this assertion to cover the whole population? There are many who have withdrawn their CPF savings and have invested wisely to benefit not only themselves but their families. In fact, quite a few Members in this House have already withdrawn their CPF, and I dare say that far from being a burden to the State, they are continuing to make significant contributions both to the State and to CPF. Should we have less faith in those who have elected us? The third point I would like to make regarding this proposal is that there is little evidence given in the Report to justify this assertion of "unnecessary consumption", and I feel that it is grossly inequitable to tar every Singaporean just because of a few spendthrifts. Moreover, if a contributor has incurred financial obligations based on his expectation of withdrawing his CPF contributions at 55 years of age, depriving him of access to this savings could well put him, at best, in an embarrassing situation financially. What could be worse is that he could become indebted. This is particularly so for those who have started families late as a result of our family planning programme and have planned to use their CPF savings for their children's education or even in meeting their daily needs. Moreover, even if he succeeds in retaining his employment, he will need the CPF savings to supplement his income since he might be re-employed with a much reduced salary which is insufficient to meet his daily expenditure. The essence of it all, Sir, is that continued employment of an older worker does not necessarily ensure him of an income sufficient to meet his daily family obligations, and the situation is worse if he fails in securing conti- nued employment beyond 55 years of age and yet he cannot have access to his CPF contributions. As a digression, before I come to the fourth point, I would like to respond to what the Minister for Labour mentioned regarding the 40,000 HDB tenants who are unable to meet their financial obligations because of arrears in rentals or instalment payments, I believe there are 1.78 million CPF accounts. We are talking about 40,000 HDB tenants who are for some reason or other, in financial difficulty and this may not necessarily be due to flagrant expenditure or inability to manage their finances. This amounts to less than 2% of CPF contributors. There could be many reasons why these 40,000 tenants could not meet their financial obligations. For example, there could be temporary setbacks in their employment, retrenchments, illnesses, and of course the odd few who either really could not manage their own finances or are spendthrifts. The point I am making, Sir, is that we cannot extrapolate the rather unsavoury behaviour, if indeed, all of them are unsavoury, of 40,000 people or families or households, as the case may be, and introduce a policy which affects 1.78 million CPF account holders. The final point which I would like to touch on relates to the raising of the CPF withdrawal age because of the feeling that some Singaporeans may be unable to manage their funds wisely. Allow me to regale you of what I feel is not a too far-fetched situation. Take the case of a CPF contributor who has just passed away and his CPF contributions are then given to his widow and children. This is as it ought to be as the CPF contributions are also intended to help the family of a contributor in the unfortunate event of his demise. Extending the argument of unwise spending, inability to manage funds and unnecessary consumption, are we to expect that there will come a day when we might have to intervene to prevent widows and children from squandering unwisely the hard-earned savings and CPF accounts of the breadwinner? I do not think that I am giving the Minister any fresh idea. I hope not. I think he is more than capable of working out this scenario. What I am trying to do, Sir, is merely to use this illustration to point out the logical extension of the Committee's recommendation to protect man from his vagrant ways. My example is simply to remind him and the Committee that we cannot always cover every eventuality of man's folly. I would not belabour the point on the CPF accounts. Much has been said. Indeed, there have been many suggestions made by earlier speakers to review this proposal. I think enough sentiments have been aired for the Minister to reconsider this recommendation carefully. My own feeling, Sir, is that it is best to leave well alone and not risk the credibility of the Government with respect to the handling of the people's CPF contributions unless convincing evidence and arguments can be presented to justify changing the ground rules. Finally, perhaps on a matter of semantics, I would have preferred to have seen the Committee adopt a more positive attitude towards the aged than to refer to the matter as problems of the aged. Because if that were the case, then every one of us here is a potential problem. Would it not encourage a more enlightened and positive attitude by society towards the elderly had they entitled the Report, and this is just a suggestion - "Responsibility of the Government and the Community Towards the Aged"? This, I feel, is showing a more positive attitude towards the aged. But perhaps the Minister and the Committee feel and believe in calling a spade a spade. There is nothing wrong with this approach. But then, as has been pointed out by the Member for Kampong Chai Chee, there is more than one way in selling a policy, no matter how correct that policy may be. 5.57 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, since last Friday we have listened to many wise comments on the Howe Report, from ageing and problem-creating Members of this House. It is also surely a tribute to my fellow PAP MPs that they have expressed their feelings of the people so well in this House. However, if the past policies of the Government are any guide, Government Ministers are more doggedly concerned with the question of what are the right policies rather than what are the popular policies, and the problem is then for us to help persuade the people to accept policies which are good for them. Sir, the CPF withdrawal age has unfortunately generated so much heat that we may fail to focus on the nature of the problems of the aged and to identify alternative policies. Taken as a whole, the Report has much to commend it. In fact, there are some very imaginative proposals. It has looked into almost every facet of the problem of the aged. I use the word "almost" quite deliberately because there are a few serious omissions in the Report. The conventional United Nations classification defines "aged people" as those above 65, and this has been used throughout the Report. This may be appropriate for the Western countries where for many years retirement age has already been 65. The irony is that the financial measures and other measures being proposed cover the crucial transition age of between 55 and 65. Already the data presented on the aged above 65 show alarming trends. The dependency ratio, as has been pointed out, will drop from 14.5 working persons to 1 aged person in 1980 to 9.8:1 by the year 2000, and 3.2:1 by the year 2030. On page 10, Table 1.1, one can see that we have very successfully reduced the Young Dependency Ratio between 1947 and the current year, and this would continue to improve. At the same time, we have obtained an old age dependency problem instead. This really shows us something: that, whereas Government can succeed in birth control programmes, no government can control the structure of the population. If one were to study this Table very carefully, one may also identify an emerging political problem, one that has plagued the governments of the advanced countries. As the proportion of the aged in voting population increases, the pressures and the measures and policies devised to cater to the aged will also increase, particularly in respect of welfare subsidies, and this is something which the Report has failed to grapple with. Furthermore, Sir, surely the dependency problem would be greater if the cut-off point for the aged is 60 rather than 65 and, even worse, if it is 55 and yet the Report has nothing to say about this. Next, Sir, in the calculation of the annuities, the amounts which are deemed to be necessary to support people at a minimum standard of living assume an inflation rate of only 5%. I feel that this would be very inadequate, especially when we are living in an age of tremendous inflation. In fact, I am concerned for those of us who still have balances in our CPF that, by the time we withdraw them, the inflation would already have eroded much of what we have inside, especially at the meagre rate of interest that is being paid out on CPF balances at the moment. Sir, I have argued before, and this is something which I hope the Government will pay attention to, that we should pay a higher rate of interest on CPF balances. I say this on good economic grounds because we are making loans at very cheap rates to statutory boards and to Government who may not use these funds as efficiently as might be the case if the rate of interest payable by CPF were more reflective of commercial rates of interest. Furthermore, Sir, the annuity calculations in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 assume that the CPF will pay 13% on balances which are kept for purchasing annuities. This is way above the current rate of 6 1/2 or so per cent paid by CPF and certainly way above commercial deposit rates. Yet nowhere in the Report is there any suggestion about how this will be financed. Who will pay for the 13% or the excess above the commercial rate of interest? Tables 3.2 and 3.3 also assume that people retire at 65, in which case the calculation seems to show that a majority of people will have enough balances at age 65 to buy an annuity of $200 per month. Yet the Report notes, and I quote: 'if the retirement withdrawal age is not raised to 65 but remains at 55, the percentage of members aged 54 now who will have sufficient balances will fall drastically to 22.9%.' Thus, Sir, the debate on whether to allow withdrawal at 55 or later surely misses the point. The point is that, as at present, many of those who withdraw at 55 do not appear to have enough to live on even if they manage their funds wisely and nobody has noted this point at all. This problem can only be tackled if the retirement age is raised to 60 and this seems to bean urgent matter. I agree with my fellow MPs that to tinker with CPF balances before the retirement age issue is settled is putting the cart before the horse. This surely is the most compelling reason for raising the retirement age to at least 60. Incidentally, the two columns of Table 3.3 appear to be mis-labelled. It is surely paradoxical if one turns to page 29 that the proportion of people who have already withdrawn CPF savings for housing and who would have enough balances to pay for the annuity is greater than those who have not withdrawn their CPF savings. There is something wrong there with those Tables. I think it should be reversed because one would expect that those who have withdrawn would have less balances available. He is shaking his head. I hope with good reason. Table 3.3 also does not appear to take into account the capital already embodied in the flats and the houses which are purchased. Surely there should be a Table showing the numbers and the percentage of those who have already purchased properties. There are some good proposals on page 30, paragraphs 3.3.5.1 and 3.3.5.2, which would allow people to purchase annuities by exchanging their flats for smaller ones. An additional proposal that I have would be to extend these provisions to those who own houses, and not merely HDB flats. Furthermore, those who already own their flats can in any case rent out one or two rooms. The problem for those who already own flats is not as severe as those who do not own. Furthermore, Sir, there is nothing in the Report about the amount of personal savings that people will have on their retirement. Perhaps a survey should be taken because we are assuming that they have zero savings and they have to rely entirely on their CPF balances. I do suspect that many people do have some nest egg somewhere, and in order to get a compre- hensive picture this personal saving element must be brought into consideration as well as the amount of property which they own. Coming now to the question of employment, on page 21 of the Report on Voluntary Employment, the whole discussion here assumes that Singapore will always have full employment or over-full employment. This is a rather heroic assumption in an age when we expect bank failures and world depressions. I rather shudder at the simple extrapolation of the experience of the 1982-83 recession when the retrenchment figures showed that few people above the age of 55 were retrenched. I do not think we can simply extrapolate from this experience. I would support legislation for extension of retirement age to 60. I now come to the question of attitudes towards old age. In the West, people refuse to acknowledge that they are growing old. In fact, many adopt youthful hairstyles and fashions which appear quite ridiculous for them, especially ladies with well-rounded tummies and are suitably ageing. There is something called the cult of youth which infects the ageing population. In oriental societies, Sir, the reverse appears to be the case. People seem to love to declare themselves older than they actually are. The Chinese typically add one or two years above their actual age and those who die have three years added on at their coffins. Why is this so? In oriental societies, age seems to be equated with respect, with honour, and with positions of authority in extended family systems. It also seems to be equated with wisdom, and there is a Chinese saying, "Wo chi yan duo guo ni chi mi" - I have eaten more salt than you have eaten rice. I hope they do not get high blood pressure as a result. The trouble is when one thinks that one is old, one actually becomes old faster. Some young people already have diseases of the aged like arthritis and rheumatism. We need to change attitudes towards ageing in Singapore and to show that it is possible to be vigorous mentally and to be mobile physically. We have some good examples in this House who show us that there is increasing wisdom in some cases and increasing mellowness as their hair greys. However, there are a few who become hard of hearing and remain rather stubborn.

You are not referring to me, are you?

There is a saying, Sir, "if the cap fits." There is a point, Sir, that people wear out faster in the tropics than in temperate countries, and surely we should take note of it and not use 65 as the benchmark. Sir, I come now to the question of filial piety. On page 43, the Examples of Taiwan and Israel are provided. Israeli law is really based on biblical standards. In the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 5, verse 16, it says: 'Honour your father and your mother as the Lord your God has commanded you. That your days may be tong and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.' In other words, if people want to have long life and enjoy good health, they should honour and obey their parents. And in honouring their parents, Proverb 20:20 says: 'Whoever curses his father or his mother, his lamp will be put out in deep darkness.' Proverb 30:17, says: 'The eye that mocks his father and scorns obedience to his mother the ravens of the valley will pick it out and the young eagles will eat it.' The second part of honouring our parents has to do with providing for them, especially in an old age. In 1 Timothy, Chapter 5:8, it says: 'But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.' In turn, Sir, parents are instructed to discipline their children and to train them. Proverb 13:24 says: 'He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly.' We have a problem here in Singapore, Sir. There is the problem of working parents. There are problems of increasing permissiveness, of exposure to rock music, undesirable culture, problems of abortion, divorces and the latest craze of break-dancing. Some Members seem to be devotees! In conclusion, Sir, I would support legislation to provide for parents and grandparents, and I would agree with fellow MPs who have asked for increased income tax reliefs and the removal of stipulation of staying with their children or having an income of $1,500 as recommended in the Report. Secondly, I would support legislation to raise the retirement age to 60 with suitable provisions for retraining and with a watchful eye on productivity. Thirdly, I would make a careful study of the available CPF balances on retirement at the age of 60 taking into account home ownership and personal savings to determine whether and how many of our aged will have sufficient means to support themselves in their old age. Fourthly, I would be inclined to be more liberal in providing homes for aged sick and the destitutes. If I may refer to page 37 of the Report, the figures given for the population of homes for the aged appear to be 3,117 on page 36, and in the survey done on the present accommodation for Types A, B and C of the aged in Table 5.1 at page 37 appear to be 3,882. There is nothing stated as to how to reconcile those two figures. Secondly, and more importantly, Table 5.1 seems to be adopted as the norm by the Committee, and the figures or the percentages there are then used for extrapolation in Table 5.2 for the year 2000. I would like to ask the Minister: on what basis is this admissible? My gut feeling is that the present facilities are grossly inadequate, and I would like to see a classification of the figures provided in page 36, paragraph 5.3.2, of the provision for the aged in homes in respect of categories A, B and C, and I think the glaring deficiencies would become obvious. Sir, coming now to the Minister for Labour's proposal, suggesting to withhold the minimum amount to ensure that the aged will have adequate means of support in their old age, I think the critical question here is, what is the minimum? One can define the minimum as to include 80%-90% of the CPF holders, or one can define the critical amount to be a very low amount, in which case most people would have something to withdraw at the age of 55 or 60. The more critical question is whether people have sufficient balances, to begin with. As the figures presented in this Report seem to indicate, my fear is that at the age of 55, most people already do not have enough balances to support an annuity of $200 per month. 6.17 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is perhaps a symptom of the changing perceptions and attitudes of the vocal sections of the people of Singapore that they seize only upon those proposals of the Report of the Committee that dealt with the extension of the CPF withdrawal age from 55 to 60 and 65 years and characterize them as a further illustration of the persistent civil servants' arrogance in managing the problems of the community on the assumption that the average Singaporean could not be trusted to adequately manage his finances and fortunes to provide against the risks of life. Indeed, Sir, I received a letter from an irate constituent, soon after the publication of the Report of the Committee, who made that very point and reminded me also that he was, far from being an ignoramus, a university graduate and that his right to freely deal with and dispose of his fund with the CPF at age 55 should not be tampered with by the State. He had earned that right. It is implicit in this contention that should a retiree become improvident as a result of his unwise management or disposal of his capital, the State must assume responsibility for his continued welfare. It is this proposition that requires closer scrutiny. It is sad and unfortunate that public comment on the Report stopped short of its reaction to the proposals concerning CPF withdrawals. The comprehensive merits of the total proposals designed to organize a healthy and purposeful life for the aged were not adequately appreciated. When fully implemented, these proposals would have provided a rudimentary structure of welfare for that section of the people which, having completed the productive phase of its life, would have earned the right to a dignified and humane retirement, be it in the form of continued employment on easier terms or in the form of creative and soul-satisfying activities. It is certain, however, that activity there must be for the mental and physical well-being of the aged; and it is equally certain that in the circumstances obtaining in Singapore the mechanics for the provision of old age welfare must be worked out by the State and not be left to the haggling of the market-place. Whilst the Committee is to be congratulated for its definition of the problems of the aged, criticism must be levelled against it for being too tentative in defining the administrative machinery and the fiscal techniques required to implement the social provision for the aged. The structure proposed is a combination of voluntarism and compulsion. Collective bargaining between trade unions and employers and the roles to be played by charitable and other benevolent associations or societies represent the area of voluntarism. There is too great a reliance on the operations of market forces. There is no guarantee, however, that the voluntarism envisaged would deliver the goods, and the Hon. Member for Kebun Baru has already adverted to the many reasons that have militated against any durable provision for retirees emerging from the collective bargaining process. The State's compulsions are to be devoted to education, specifically in the inculcation of the desirable virtue of filial piety in the young and the productive sections of the population, in dealing with errant members of the family who fail to look after their parents and grand-parents and in providing marginal incentives to the private sector in order to induce it to gainfully employ the aged. The reference to the Confucian ethic and the dichotomy between individualism of the West and the collective ethic of the East were referred to in passing in the Report. But that dichotomy is not a simple or easy one to maintain and should be seen in its proper perspective. The economic arrangements that we have adopted for ourselves and which have created the wealth of the community are those of the free, open competitive market. Private enterprise provides the motive power for the generation of our wealth. The ethic of the free market is that of the individual entrepreneur and not the deadening hand of a collective which stultified enterprise and initiative. Given the evident success of the individualist ethic in the market-place, it would be difficult not to feel its impact in the other spheres of our social life as well. It is the same ethic that is shaking up all the traditional societies of Asia which have embarked on industrialization in order to solve their grave economic problems. In the light of these developments, I do not think that any fundamental dichotomy between individualism of the West and the collective or group ethic of the East would persist for long. In any event when the Sage wrote his precepts in ancient China, he did not have to contend with the pressures of life generated in a modern industrial society where most people live in high-rise apartments. He did not also have to contend with a system of governance based on political democracy. The ethical systems of the mature civilizations of the East were developed during times when the character of the Chinese and Indian societies were agricultural. The natural consequence of the simultaneous development of an industrial civilization and of political democracy had yet to be felt, as we in Singapore are feeling now. An agricultural society, with its scattered households and unspecialized economic life, is normally both unconscious of requiring elaborate social services and incapable of providing them. An acute observer of the Western experience has made pointed reference as to how Western societies were ignorant of the need to make compulsory social provision on their first plunge into the world of great industry. He said that in carrying the habits of the peasant into their new urban environment, they allowed for a generation to poison its body and starve its soul, before they realized that what was innocuous in a village was deadly in a town and that in their enthusiasm at the spectacle of increasing profits and wages, which were the natural result of increased productivity, they were disposed to interpret well-being as a commodity which, if unham- pered by the State, individuals of character and intelligence could buy in the necessary quantities by their own exertions. Sir, the result in the West was, as it is beginning to be here with us, a paradox of rising pecuniary incomes and deepening social misery. The question is whether we could obviate the need to repeat the Western experience in our ascent into an industrial society. If completely moral individuals could be produced by the inculcation of Eastern ethical values in our schools, then the problems of ageing could be solved within the confines of the two or three-tier family system. But for the reasons set out on page 11 of the Report and also due to the sheer physical factors that are atomising our traditional family ties in our HDB estates, I am not sanguine that the mere inculcation of Eastern ethical values would provide the required solvent, I am afraid that the coercive intervention of the State is inevitable whether we like it or not, if we are not to let the aged fend for themselves as best they could. If the premise is right that retirees represent a section of the population that has made its contributions to society, it is equally right that the State should assume responsibility for providing for its welfare. There are limits to what an individual can provide in an Industrial Society. He cannot create by his isolated action a healthy environment or establish an educational system with a wide range of facilities, all conditions which make the difference between happiness and misery and, sometimes indeed, between life and death. In so far as they exist, and I am happy to point out that they do in great measure in Singapore, in the shape of a reasonably healthy environment, good health services and an effective educational system, they are the source of a social income received in form, not of money, but of increased well-being. But I would urge that we go further and instead of tampering with a person's CPF contributions and placing reliance on the employer/union collective bargaining system, the State should assume full responsibility for structuring the well-being of the aged. The productive section of the population would be busy not only in raising the next generation of Singaporeans, but would also be increasingly busy in contributing towards the defence and security of the State. The burden on the productive section is already a heavy one and is bound to increase, not decrease, in the future. In the circumstances, it would not be difficult to build a convincing case for State intervention for the provision of old age welfare. How the resources required for funding the schemes for old age welfare are to be garnered is a matter that must be left to the specialists to work out. It is conceivable that the required resources would ultimately come from the State, the private sector and the trade unions; but, before the end-result is achieved, a certain amount of arm-twisting would have taken place. Sir, these are my broad observations on an otherwise admirable Report. In the final analysis, when the work is done, we would have made provision for the ta ii-end of the life of "that timid staring creature, man, who is so compounded as to require, not only money, but light, air and water, not to mention such uneconomic goods as tranquility, beauty and affection". Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Minister for Health, as amended by the hon. Member for Kebun Baru. 6.28 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got a very unenviable job. What my Committee has painted is a very broad canvas showing you the whole problem, and we have suggested to you a very simple infrastructure that will tackle the problems of the aged. The Member for Bukit Merah says there are no problems: that we should be more positive. I do not think so because he is probably looking at the problem with tinted glasses. Even if everything goes well, as some of my doctor friends in this House will admit, once past 75 there will be problems whether you like it or not. These doctors at the moment cannot find you the answers. They can only prevent' you from dying, at very high costs. Do think about that! Ponder over that problem - at 75 and over, more and more people will be suffering from senile dementia, and there will be no cure. The doctors will not let you die; you will be alive, and it will cost you and your family plenty of money. We are today bringing up more and more people who will live longer and longer. Many more will live past their 75th year. Ponder over that. As I have said, we have painted a very broad canvas. But in the House, hon. Members have asked me to say, "Why don't you be like Van Eyck? Show me the eye of that soldier in the picture. Also show me the colour of his eye, and also what is reflected in his eye", as the Member for Whampoa wants me to do! For his enlightenment, it is very simple. Those Tables were drawn up by University dons who did the job for us. We are not the experts who drew up the Tables. We have to depend on consultants.

You did not consult me!

We did not consult him. I am sorry. Let us come back to the Report. I must thank the House for being so generous with their time and effort in giving us a cross-section of what they think of the Report. And, as I said earlier, the major point was CPF. I am indeed grateful to the Minister for Labour for coming forward and doing valiant service to try and solve some of the problems that Members have raised. I am not in charge of the CPF, so I cannot direct what should be done. I am only the Chairman of this Committee and I made the recommendations in the form of a Blue Paper. It is open for discussion. I am indeed glad that Members have come forward with their views. We have got all their views in now and we probably have to consider every one of them. Let me reiterate again. What was the purpose of this set of recommendations? The Committee tried to do what was required of it within its terms of reference, and what it recommended was to set up a comprehensive national policy for the aged for the Government to consider. Briefly, this national policy aims at keeping every elderly person mentally active, physically fit and functionally independent for as long as possible. And further, to encourage him, from as young an age as possible, to save enough money to give him financial independence and security and to remain in the mainstream of society. That is the gist of the recommendations. CPF is only one of the 35 recommendations. I am, to a certain extent, very much gratified that out of the 35 recommendations, Members saw fit to run down only one of them, but in running that one down they have put enough venom into it to justify all the others that they did not run down. In order to be able to have this national policy, the Committee recommends that every individual must start planning as early as possible for old age, paying particular attention to his health, his employ- ment and his financial independence. Persons aged 40 and above should begin to make adjustments now so that they will be ready for the problems that they will face as they grow older. The Committee identified the need for the society, the Government, the community, the family and the elderly themselves to do their individual parts or their respective parts. It is not an effort only of the Government, as the Member for Anson wants us all to believe when he purveys his beautiful idea of a caring society. "I care for you. The more you are becoming poor, the more I care for you, the more you vote for me!" So eventually, like Great Britain, the whole blooming nation is probably being cared for. Right? That is what he wants us to do. He says that is what is going on in Britain, so why do we not follow? "If the State cares for the people, the various charitable associations will not stop. They will also care. Everybody cares. So we want to produce a whole nation of people, all being cared for by the State." What is to remain if everybody has to be cared for by the State? If we have got 2.5 million people all cared for by the State, who cares for these 2.5 million people? The Member for Anson! No, our policy is different. We want to put backbones into every individual, every citizen, so that he cares for himself and cares for his family as well. That is the dignity and self-respect we want to build into our citizens, not to be suppliant, invertebrate and dependent, lying in bed. This is what the Member for Anson wants the citizens of Singapore to be. We do not want that.

What dignity have they?

The problem that he does not understand is that while we give dignity to our citizens, he wants our citizens to be cringing and crawling, begging for State doles and stipends and for politicians to dish out various things so that they can go round and say, "i now dish you this. I now dish you that." We do not want that.

The point is whether they have got dignity.

I would suggest to the Member for Anson that he should take our advice which has been the practical experience of 25 years. When we look at the Western society, we should look at it from the point of view of what they have done. We must gain from their negative lessons. That we want to learn. That means, learn from them what not to do, because they are in no position today to tell us that they are on the right track. We are in a position to tell them that our way is right. And the sooner the Member realizes that the better. We have dignity. We have been able to solve our unemployment problem. We do not have the kind of inflation that they have. We do not have more than 10% unemployment, and we have more than enough employment, so that we even import guest workers to help us. In spite of what the Member for Whampoa says, I am assuming in the Report that for the next few years at least we will have full employment. We do not in any way think that this broad canvas will allow us to find all the answers that Members want. Therefore, in the process we recommended that there should be a Coordinating Department that will have under its wing various Government entities and departments and statutory authorities, all of which have dealings with looking after the problems of the elderly, to come together. And from there they will do studies. We even went further to suggest that there should be more investigations and research into geriatrics and gerontology. There should be constant monitoring of all the developments that are going on so that at any ong time the policies of the Government on looking after the aged can be adjusted to suit the needs as things begin to change. I am particularly grateful to the Member for Ayer Rajah. He is a doctor. He has probably given me the most reassuring advice that I can get from a doctor, ie we must plan in terms of looking after the people. He has said that we have not done enough in terms of the Home Nursing Foundation. And I would like to take this opportunity to tell the House what proposals are being made for the Home Nursing Foundation. The Home Nursing Foundation is to be expanded to draw in volunteer social and health workers to provide a wide range of medical, health and rehabilitative and nursing services for people on a community basis. I hope that once the medical profession begins to pick this up, and we can get a few people who will act as catalysts, this scheme can go on and various health and welfare services that the elderly needs will be provided. I have tried to explain time and time again that helping the aged, providing care and support for the aged, for the elderly, who need this care and support, is not something that we can get by setting up a Government department, build an old age home and then put the people in and say, "Well, here you are. You work daily from this hour to that hour. This is your shift. That is your shift." And your old people will be well looked after. That is not so. Looking after the elderly, particularly the sick elderly, is a labour of love, of compassion, of charity. I do not think, whatever we may feel about our own people, that we can buy this by employing people on a regular salary basis. It has to be done, as I say, by people who have got the mission, nary zeal, who have got the compassion, who have got the charity or who are socially-minded social welfare voluntary workers. These are the people who can do the work best. And we make it clear that Government is neither the most effective nor even an efficient organization to do these kinds of services. The missionary, the religious, the voluntary and philanthropic societies can do very much better and probably at very much lower cost. That is the reason why we geared it towards supporting them. The Member for Anson read this Report of the Committee and, for reasons that are best known or unknown to anybody, he stopped shod at a certain page where he saw a Table with Type C. He then said, "What is the Government doing about it? Why doesn't the Government extend help?" Because if he turns to the next page, Sir, he will find that there is a lot of help being extended. Maybe his particular copy stops there and is as blank as his mind! He claims that Government has done nothing, that Government is going back on its word. Government is this, Government is that. And here is a Report that is all the time suggesting that this is a problem which neither the Government nor the individual can solve. It needs all five parties, the Government, the society, the community, the family and the elderly themselves. An hon. Member: What about the Workers' Party?

They cannot even help themselves! You may want to pray for him! Let me now come to the Member for Kebun Baru who has moved an amendment. He, I presume, wrote his speech even before he heard me speak. And in issuing that statement, he covered three-quarters of the ground which I have covered in my statement, and he practically agreed on - An hon. Member: Everything!

- everything with me except on two minor points. One is the CPF which has been very well debated. The other point is that he thinks the re-employment of elderly workers need not require the employers to pay full CPF contribution. This again has been picked up by various Members, as the debate went along. I think the Member for Moulmein went to great lengths. And when he spoke just now, he sounded exactly like the employer - that we have to argue at great length to convince the employer on our Committee. What he is doing is to try and do the elderly workers in of their CPF. Let me explain a little so that those of you who have raised this point will appreciate what discussions had gone on. Before I go on, the NTUC had a very steady representation on this Committee of mine. So we know what the NTUC thinking is. It is not that we did it without the NTUC's participation. We feel that the employer is always in a better position to set the payment for productivity and for merit than the employee. But we also feel that the employee will know what his or her worth is. A workman is worthy of his hire. So when the retirement age is up, it is natural for the employee to decide whether or not he wants to keep on working for the employer. And it is also natural for the employer to decide whether or not the retiring employee should be re-employed and at what terms. The assumption, as I suggested to the Member for Wham poa, is that for the next few years at least, we will have reasonably good chances of full employment. So this is for the next few years. I hope that during the next few years the Coordinating Department would have been formed and they will be monitoring what is going on. So this is for the interim. The employer will be in a better position to dictate if he is to decide the exact payment. If the employee is not careful, he can be done in. So our safeguard for the employee is that whatever the employer decides to pay him, all the various statutory rates and statutory payments into the CPF, Skills Development Fund and payroll tax must be borne by the employer, so that the employer would not diddle the employee. At that time the employee was not in a strong position as he was before to argue, because the union would have accepted that this person has retired. So we think that this will be an added protection for him. If you feel that the employee should have less in the form of a total package of CPF payments plus the take-home pay, then by all means you can always tell the employee, "Take a bit less", because in the existing law I am told that CPF balances can be withdrawn every year or every three years. So there is no problem about the money being held once you are past your retirement age. On the other hand, if you allow the employee to take on jobs without CPF, at the end of the year he may have nothing set aside for him. He might feel, "Why is it that other people work and have CPF balances and I do not have?" So after a lot of discussion, we overruled the objections of the employers and we put this down. Today I am totally surprised that an NTUC representative would argue word for word exactly what the employer wanted. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this House you have heard after three days of debate different views being given. It is very much like the case where two persons looked out through the window, one saw bars and the other one saw stars. So it depends on whether you have got a short sight or a far sight. Many Members have accused me of having rose-tinted glasses, and I think the Member for Alexandra even said that I have telescopic lenses, but the lenses had dropped. It is not true. We are very much on the ground. Let me come to the Member for Rochore. His first attack was that this is a plan drawn up by civil servants who have no CPF to worry about because they are safeguarded and protected by their pensions, and therefore they could only suggest that you dip your fingers into the CPF kitty to solve your problems. We are not. We are not in any way saying that the CPF, ons out of 35 recommendations, is going to solve your problems. The other 34 must come in. The more important one is changing the attitude of the society which is one of the five elements that I have told the House - the society, the government, the community, the family and the elderly themselves. Their attitude towards old age and the process of growing old must now change. The Member for Whampoa says, "Why do you use 65? That is European." It is true. But we must always remember that our life expectancy is getting on to be equal to the Europeans. Thanks to our higher standard of living, better housing, better health and medical facilities, we are getting on very near to the Europeans. Our males today, at 1982 figures, are living to 69.8 years, and females 73 years, which is almost equal to the European, which is only 70 and 74 years. There is little or no difference at all. So if the retirement age of 55 was fixed at a time when the life expectancy was 50 or 55, surely it is legitimate and logical that we should now raise the retirement age and also raise the withdrawal age for CPF. But I am told by the Member for Ayer Rajah that logic is not necessarily right. I do not know what is right after this! The Member for Rochore also said that Government is requiring the employer to pay too much in terms of 25% CPF, 4% Skills Development Fund, 2% Payroll Tax, making 31% and that this money is being locked up and the Finance Ministry does not know what to do with it. And therefore the money is taken out of circulation. All these arguments are probably more appropriate in a discussion on the Budget rather than in a discussion on the Report on the Problems of the Aged. We know that he has got his pet ideas about what should be the way to solve the health problem, what should be the way to solve the welfare problem. He feels that most of these services should be paid out of the revenues of the State. Even if we have the revenues of the State to pay for the services for the aged, by the time we come to meet these problems, we have not got the necessary manpower. Neither have we got the kind of manpower to look after the old. A person who studies penology, that is, the science of putting people in jail for committing a crime, will tell you that the major deprivation of a person who has been convicted of a crime .is his freedom. Your puffing an old elderly sick person into a place where he has got no more freedom is a greater punishment than anything else that you can do to him. The State can only do that - build old folks homes or homes for the aged and put these people in, and then put in rules and regulations that they will have to follow. That is not the way you want to treat your parent! I hope the various quotations from the good book by the Member for Whampoa have struck fear into the head of the Member for Anson for ever daring to say such things. He claims he is a caring person, but he does not care what happens to the old fellow. He thinks that the moment you put him into a Government-owned home, with Government paying for the old folks home, then the problem is solved. As the Member for Kampong Chai Chee says, "Amen". I am sorry I have to go rather piecemeal instead of answering every one of the Members because many of the things that were said were repeated two or three times, some contradictory. So I have got to look at it from the point of view of what I have collected over the last three days. One question that was raised was, what evidence have we got to show that many people have lost their savings through speculation or have squandered the money that they have withdrawn from the CPF? Many Members have asked that question: the Member for Thomson, the Member for Jalan Kayu, the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, the Member for Alexandra, and also the Member for Bukit Merah, and one or two others. We do not have any concrete evidence but there are two things I would put to them. They must have had people going to them and saying, "This has been done." Anybody who is a lawyer must have had to deal with cases of people who have lost all their money, or must have dealt with clients who said, "That fellow owes me money. He could have paid it because he withdrew his CPF but he squandered it." There was a survey done by a University group sometime in 1981. They took the number of people who withdrew their money at 55 over the period 1970-80, and they discovered that 2.1% lost their money in business. Of the age group 55 who withdrew their money, 2.1% lost their money totally. The survey only looked for the chaps who have totally lost their money. Those who lost 99% did not count. Those who totally lost their money 2.1%, and those who went and speculated and totally lost their money 1%. So you add together, it is 3.1%. If you remember, in the earlier figures we gave you, and I think the Member for Whampoa highlighted it, there were 2% - 3% of people aged 65 and above who are what you would call "aged sick" and are now in old folks homes. The Member for Whampoa argued with me that the figure 3117 should read 3860, or something like that. This 3.1% is more than the 3,000-odd. 3% of 170,000 is about 5,000. Do you or do you not consider this number significant? I cannot give you the number of people who lost less than 100% of their money. As the Minister for Labour says, "Yes, if every one of our citizens can look after himself, we have no problems." But there will be a small proportion who will not be able either to husband their resources properly, manage their finances or invest their money properly. These are the people who, if we do not take care of them or prevent them from doing this, that or the other, are likely to land themselves in trouble and in need of help. And who are the people who help them? Those people who are able to take care of themselves. They are the other balance of the society, is it not? So do you want it, or do you not want it? This has nothing to do with fair play or trying to blame the majority for the sins of the minority. Nothing of that kind. We are going to face a problem. As people grow older, there will be more and more old people, and more and more of them will be in need of help. There will be less and less younger people. The dependency ratio is getting lower and lower. Who is to help the old? If we do not plan now, if we do not make the necessary provisions now, by the time we come to the year 2010 or 2020, it may be too late. That is the reason why there is a sense of immediacy when we suggested that it should be implemented with effect from the 1st of July, although we have not even set down the framework for the Coordinating Department. There is also the statement that it is a breach of faith to defer the CPF withdrawal age. I think some later speakers say, "It is not a breach of faith. It is perfectly within the law to do so." If the Member for Anson thinks it is a breach of faith or a breach of the law, he will probably take us to court. There should be no problem with him. He is very fond of taking people to court.

That is your answer, "Take you to court"?

Please do so. I am in sympathy with my Muslim Members who said that it is difficult for the Muslims to do one of the five major important things in their life, ie to go to the Haj, and not having the money to do so they therefore look forward at age 55 or so to withdraw that money. But, as I say, this is a society where we cannot legislate only for ons type. Therefore, I am very much gratified that the Member for Kolam Ayer came out and said that there should be a special scheme whereby we can persuade the Muslim CPF contributor to contribute from a very young age, $20, $30, $40 or $50 each month, so that over a period of years of CPF collecting their money, earn interest, and eventually when he gets to 45 or 55 years he can go on his Haj. I fully support that idea and I hope the Minister for Labour will direct his CPF people to work that out for him. But it does not come into the old age problem. These are for the young people. The Member for Kampong Chai Chee claimed that when they are past 55 or 60 years they cannot go round Kaa'ba so many times. I do not know whether he is doing sacrilege to it.

I have not been to the Haj.

You have not been, is it not? You are not qualified to do so. The Member for Rochore also asked us, "Why does not the Government lay down the boundaries or the limits within which the CPF can be used for retirement", because we are now using it for too many things. As the Minister for Labour said, "We have on the one hand people saying that CPF is for old age, keep it for old age. On the other hand, we have got people saying that CPF is a good saving. Let us use it for this, that and the other - for education, for a lot more of other things." The Member for Telok Blangah said, "If you can use it for local travel, why can't you use it for overseas travel, to go to Mecca?" It is not true. You cannot use it for local travel. You can use it to buy SBS shares as an investment. If you sell that investment, you have got to give it back to the CPF. Your SBS share entities you to buy a season ticket, and you got to pay for that ticket. CPF money does not go to pay for the season ticket. So that is not true. Then comes the various proposals which Members were very generously dis- posed towards me. They said, "Well, in order not to make this fellow feel so uneasy, we allow him a compromise, ie a partial withdrawal at 55." The various alternatives have already been outlined by the Minister for Labour, and I do not want to belabour you and waste time on them. Employment - this is the important recommendation. How to assure older workers that those who wish to continue to work after 55 will be able to continue to work? There is, what I would call, a need to get over the attitudinal stumbling block. Clear the attitude first. At the moment, there are stumbling blocks on the part of the employer, on the part of the employee, on the part of the Government. The Member for Moulmein was most vehement when he said, "You talk so much of it. How is it that when civil servants retire (he was referring to teachers, I presume) only a few selected are allowed to be re-employed and even these few, though they have the same qualifications, are re-employed at different rates?" Do I repeat you right?

Not very right. I will reply to you later.

Never mind. If the Government does not show the way, how can the private sector follow? I agree that the attitude of the Government must also change. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

I agree that the employer's attitude must also change. Most employers, when they look at the man who is 55 or 60 coming for a job, will say, "You have worked so long for that company. You are 55 years old. You are already retired. You are too old." There it goes, and the old man feels that he is hopeless, he is useless, and he is unwanted. So why try? . There is also the attitude of the NTUC which we must try to correct. If a worker, after retirement, is prepared to apply for a job and the job offers him less than his last drawn salary it should not be looked upon as a lowering of his status or something that is infradig for him to accept. If you remember, over the years, your treatment of your members has been that the salary can only go up; it cannot go down, whatever the vicissitudes of the economy. At most it is stationary. It cannot go down. It can always go up and every year, irrespective of whether or not there has been an increase in skill, increase in productivity, increase in merit, the NWC award applies because you negotiate it for the whole company or for the whole industry. Employers are very calculating fellows. They know exactly what a worker is worth. If you say that the present agreement is retirement at 50, and he has got an employee who at 30 has already reached his peak but at 40 he is, what in the industry they call, a middle-aged misfit, blocking the way of the better and brighter young fellows, and not producing enough to justify his salary but nevertheless for the next 10 years has to be paid more and more with each passing year, the employer cannot wait fast enough to get the fellow off. You cannot get him to change his attitude to re-employ that fellow. He cannot do it. So now, how do we get this attitude changed, that he should now be able to switch over to payment at a rate for the job, or payment for merit and productivity? You will find that you meet most of these problems in the less skilled manual work which requires dexterity, because after a certain age your dexterity declines. But in terms of other jobs, particularly the managerial, and the administrative and executive jobs, there is no problem in getting a job for a person who has had long years of experience. In fact, other employers are prepared to pay more for him. There is no such thing as legislating for extension of the retirement age, because some people may not want employment to be extended. They want to be free, to be on their own. That is one of the reasons why we say, "Let it be negotiated, but encourage employers to change the attitude towards people who have retired, who are 55." Actually 55 is not old. The chronological age should not be used as a determinant. It should be how the person is physically and mentally. How to provide for the retraining of older workers? We have suggested that EDB should be one of them using the Skills Development Fund. We have suggested that the Ministry of Labour, working with the other Government departments like VITB and others that train people, should work out schemes whereby people, even before they retire, should be told, "We have got schemes to retrain you in so many alternative skills. If you have got to a situation where you think that you have reached the limit of your capability, it is time for you to think in terms of a second career, a third career or even a fourth career." They should not hold on to the old idea that "once I get a job I am holding on to it, because the longer I stay the more pay I get, and I will not get out. I do not want to be trained." These are the problems that involve the attitude. I do not know whether you would be able to change it in 10, 15 or 20 years. This is not something that we can give you the answers overnight. In fact, for the whole problem of the aged, we cannot find the answers. We can only keep on trying to make adjustments to accommodate and to take care of the problems at the time that we meet them. In the meantime, hopefully, there will be more research done. There will be more studies done to find out how to solve these problems. Hopefully, as I said to the doctors, they may be able to find some cure for senile dementia. Then there is the problem of life expectancy. I note that two hon. Members raised this problem. One is the Member for Clementi and the other is the Member for Thomson. The Member for Clementi said it is wrong to assume that those in their 40s today have the same life expectancy as those at birth. It is clear that he did not understand what life expectancy is. Let me read the definition of life expectancy: The expectation of life at a specific age refers to the average number of years of life remaining to the survivors of that age. The index is computed by applying the age specific death rates prevailing at the year of computation. The expectation of life at any given age improves with increasing chronological age since persons reaching the older ages are those who have survived the mortality risks of the earlier ages that they have lived through. For example, based on the 1980 mortality rates, a male child at birth is expected to live 68.9 years. A male person, aged 40 years, would be expected to live 71.5 years although 40 years ago when he was born the life expectancy then was only 55 but because he managed to live through all the difficulties of the last 40 years, today he can expect to live even longer than the child who was born today.' That is how you calculate life expectancy. [Interruption]. If you can tell me your age, I will tell you how long you can expect to live. Between the ages of 65 and 69, if you are alive today, you can expect, on the average, to live another 12.3 years. I hope that satisfies the Member. Furthermore, the expectation of life at each age improves with time owing to improvements in the state of health of the population. Therefore, although the expectation of life of persons born in the 1940s was around 50 years of age, the expectation of life to these same persons who are now in their 40s will be around 72 years of age. So you improve as you get along. If you manage to survive, then your chances are better than even the ones who are born today. The Member for Thomson brought up a question. He said a Chinese at 55 today will not have more than 13% chance of living to 60. Is that correct? What is your statement?

13% of the Singaporean Chinese males are not expected to live beyond 55 and 42% of the Singaporean Indian males are not expected to live beyond 65 years of age.

Your figures were pinched from some book. Right? For Chinese males, 86.8% will live up to 55 years. Indian males, 59.4% will live up to 65 years.

That is the reverse of it. It is the same book.

The answer is based on the mortality rates that are now current. A male, irrespective of whether he is Chinese, Malay or Indian, at 55 years today has a 92% chance of living up to 60 and an 80% chance of living up to 65. So it is not as bad as he made it out to be because his figures frighten everybody. For a female today at 55 years of age, she has a 95% chance of living to 60 and an 88% chance of living to 65. So the vast majority will live to 65 to draw their CPF. You go out to the street and if a car runs over you, you die too! There were various questions as to what is the Ministry of Health doing about dove-tailing these various recommendations with the National Health Scheme and with the Medisave Scheme. If you look at the problem carefully, you will find that one fits into the other. So there is no problem except that we may have to expand the various community health services and assistance programmes that will be organized at the community level in order to provide them. Various Members have suggested that the proposals of the Committee to legislate for children to look after their parents were either good or not good. We have got two views. The Member for Kaki Bukit said that even if the father had not looked after the son, the son should have the forgiveness in him to look after the parent when old. I fully endorse that statement but I do not know whether the son will feel the same. We have to be fair. If he does not want to do it, we cannot charge him in court and punish him. But if he wants to do it, very good. This is not important. We are not legislating filial piety, even though the Member for Anson feels that it is unfair. Where in the case of marriage there is a marriage contract, in the case of father and son, there is no contract. There is also no contract between parent and baby, and yet we require the parent to look after the baby. If you do not look after your baby, you will be charged in court. There is no contract. I do not know what he is arguing about.

You produce the baby.

I did not produce any baby, mind you! The problem here is two-fold. One is that we legislate that there is a responsibility on the part of children to look after their aged parents. That we know is probably draconian. If the son or the daughter does not want to look after the parent or love the parent, the most you can do is to fine him or her and make him or her pay a regular maintenance fee. But that is not important. The important thing is that if eventually there are homes for the aged sick and the children put their parents into these homes and the children do not pay, what can the homes do? Evict them? You cannot evict the aged sick. And if there is no law to say that the children are responsible, who is responsible? So there must be this law to say that we can catch hold of the children. In fact, we went even one step further. We say that if the home is run on a commercial basis and you want to claim back the sums owed to the home for the maintenance of the aged sick, the Government will pay first, and then the Government will take steps to get it back from their children who are responsible. If we do not have a law to say that the children are responsible for the maintenance of the elderly parents or sick parents, then you cannot even take action against them, as in Western societies which our friend, the Member for Anson, wants us to follow. You cannot get anything. He will look at you this way and say, "So what?" Let us look at this afternoon's various suggestions. The Member for Bukit Merah came out with various points saying that we have not done enough. I do not want to go through all that he has said. But I would like to pick up one or two of his points. He quoted some figures. He said that there were 1.7 million CPF accounts and if a few of the contributors could not pay their PUB or Housing Board instalments or Housing Board rents, that is a very small figure. That is not true. His figures were quoted in the usual way, statistics to prove whatever he wants to prove. There may be 1.7 million CPF accounts. But of these CPF accounts, some of them are dormant, some of them are accounts of people who have left and hoping to come back; and some of them have not contributed for a number of years. So the actual number of active accounts is about 900,000. Therefore, the figure of 40,000 out of 900,000 is quite different from 40,000 out of 1.7 million. [Interruption] It comes to the same thing. Do you not think 40,000 of our citizens constitute a significant number of people we must look after? If you think that is true, then the others do not matter because you should be very grateful that you have all the others able to look after themselves. But we are the Government. We must look after these 40,000. That is our problem. All this time I have been trying to make out in the Report that we are not looking at the problems today because very fortunately for us, we, the elderly of this generation, the senior citizens of this generation, are a very small minority. We only constitute 4.7% of the population. We are, what you call, the fittest who managed to survive. A lot of our contemporaries have either died because of illness, disease, like malaria or other tropical diseases, or were taken away by the Japanese, or have migrated, or have repatriated to their countries of origin. What is left today in the form of senior citizens, 4.7%, will not constitute a problem at all. I am not as sanguine as my friend, the Member for Delta, who said that if you encourage them to do breakdancing, they will break their necks; so you will have no old people and there will be no old people problem. No. I do not think we can ever encourage that because if he falls and breaks his neck but does not die, you will have an invalid on your hands; which is much more costly. Never think of this kind of short-cut solutions. Now, I have to seek the indulgence of the Member for Whampoa. I cannot give him the analysis of figures that he sought just now because, as I said, this was done by the University dons, and maybe he can seek from his colleagues. I think the name was quoted. I do not know whether he is still with the University.

Retired.

Retired, joined the ranks of senior citizens. I am afraid that time does not permit me to go on answering and, therefore, I have to retire.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I answer a point that the Minister has raised?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I always thought that the Minister for Health is a friend of mine. On the particular point about my proposal, if he said that it sounded like an employer, I think his Committee sounded even more like an employer, in fact, worse than an employer because the recommendation in the Report is that the NTUC should get the workers to accept lower wages. What is the effect? Is this what the employers also want? This is the kind of language the employers speak. I think we have to understand what the employers think. Today, you are not prepared to legislate and say the people should continue working until they die. You are not even prepared to legislate that they work up till 60. You say "Stop at 55. No legislation." So every worker who retires at the age of 55 is at the mercy of the employer to re-employ him or another employer to employ him. And he has got no choice. The employers have always used this as an argument to refrain from employing elderly workers. So what do we do? Is it not the NTUC's concern that these workers should continue to get employment? Since the Committee is not prepared to come out strongly and say, "Legislate", since you are not prepared to go to that extent, I think we have got to find some way where you make it attractive to the employer to continue to employ. My suggestion is, in fact, superior to the suggestion of the Committee, by asking the worker to accept lower wages, or go on a less important job. There is the question of dignity. It is not just a question of money. I think it is not money alone that matters to an old worker. He wants a certain degree of dignity. He does not want to feel that he is less important than he has ever been before. What is my proposal? That he continues to enjoy and get the same take-home pay. If he was drawing $1,000 and his take-home pay was $750, my proposal is that he continues to take back $750. The employer pays him $750. There is no loss in dignity. He continues to enjoy that pay. All that he does not have is CPF. Today, at the age of 60, what is the choice left for him? Nothing. Not only is there no CPF, there is no job as at the present moment. So what I am saying is that you put up an attractive scheme for the employer where at least you give him a job at $750 or 75% of his last take-home pay. I mean, 75% of his pay which is his take-home pay. It is a very dignified, a very honourable, and a very satisfactory scheme that gives the elderly worker not only a continued sense of importance but also a contribution to society.

Mr Sia, are you repeating what you have said just now?

No, the Minister for Health did not get my point. I have to explain it to him so that he could see my proposal in the correct perspective.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am perfectly clear on the point that the Member for Moulmein is making. What I suggested to him was this. Look at it from a longer term point of view, and not keep on looking at it as if there is going to be, all the time, an annual increase in salary until you get to the retirement age when you are no longer worth your salary, in which case, you will be at the mercy of the employer. But if you had planned for the worker to be trained earlier, you could have shunted him to a second career, a third career or a fourth career. Besides, there is not the bald statement in the Report that all employees who are retired should be re-employed at lower pay. As I have said, it depends on the productivity and the merit of the person. If he is worth more, he should know himself that he will be worth more, he can get a better job, he can be paid more. There should be nothing to it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that I have listened to Members, and I have taken down all the notes. The one hour that you give me does not permit me to answer every one of them. But all the points that have been made by the hon. Members of this House during the three days of debate have been taken down. I will probably have to got a team of people to study them very carefully to try and see what can be done after having taken into account the views that have been expressed in this House, before it is possible to prepare a proper White Paper that will set out Government policy and to submit that Paper to the Government for approval. [Applause]

Before we come to Mr Jeyaretnam, I shall first deal with the amendment. I shall put the Question on the first part of the amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru, which is, to leave out the words, "approves the recommendations of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put, and agreed to.

I shall now propose the Question on the second part of the amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru, which is, to insert the words: "recommends to the Government to adopt the Report, after making appropriate amendments to the recommendations taking into consideration the views expressed by this House". Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted".

Mr Jeyaretnam, would you agree that your amendment to the amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru would, in fact, negative his amendment?

It would, Sir.

In that case,[ am sorry. I am afraid your amendment would be out of order. The proper course for you is to vote against the Question on the amendment.

If that is your ruling, I accept that. All right.

I shall now put the Question on the original amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru. Ouestion, "That the words proposed to be inserted be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

I shall now put the Question on the original Motion of the Minister for Health as amended by the amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru. Question put, "That this House, having noted the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged - A Blue Paper by the Ministry of Health, February 1984, as contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 1984, recommends to the Government to adopt the Report, after making appropriate amendments to the recommendations taking into consideration the views expressed by this House."

I call for a Division, Sir.

Ring the Division bells. The House divided: Ayes, 53; No, 1; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont) Abbas Abu Amin Lau Teik Soon Ahmad Mattar Lee Chiaw Meng E.W. Barker Lee Yiok Seng Chai Chong Yii Lee Yock Suan S. Chandra Das Lim Boon Heng Chau Sik Ting Lim Chee Onn Bernard Chen Mansor Haji Sukaimi Chin Harn Tong Ng Kah Ting Ch'ng Jit Koon Ong Pang Boon Chua Sian Chin Ong Tong Cheong S. Dhanabalan Othman bin Haron Eusofe Fong Sip Chee Ow Chin Hock Goh Chee Wee Phua Bah Lee Goh Chok Tong Rohan bin Kamis Ho Kah Leong Saidi Haji Shariff Ho See Bong Seah Mui Kok Howe Yoon Chong P. Selvadurai Hwang Soo Jin Sia Khoon Seong M.K.A. Jabbar Sidek bin Saniff S. Jayakumar Tan Cheng Bock Koh Lip Lin Augustine H.H. Tan Lai Tha Chai Tony Tan Keng Yam Lau Ping Sum Tan Soo Khoon Ayes (cont) No Tang See Chim J.B. Jeyaretnam Teo Chong Tee Wan Soon Bee Wong Kwei Cheong Eugene Yap Giau Cheng Abstention Yeo Choo Kok Yeo Toon Chia Yeoh Ghim Seng Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E W Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes to Eight o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.